Skip to main content

Full text of "Circumferential transit report"

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 06584 016 5 



f 



-r^ L)l~-&f( 



GOVDOC 

3170 





BOSTON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REVIEW 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL 

TRANSIT REPORT October 1972 








1 


■ 

\ 


■ ^ 


■ 


H 




I 







The Boston Transportation Planning Review 
is a study undertaken for the Commonwealth ' 
of Massachusetts, sponsored by the Executive 
Office of Transportation and Construction 
through the Department of Public Works (DPW) 
and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 
Authority (MBTA) . 

State support is contributed by the DPW and 
the MBTA. This report has been prepared in 
cooperation with the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 
The preparation of this report has also been 
financed in part through a grant from the 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban 
Mass Transportation Administration, under 
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 
as amended . 



CONTENTS Page 



A. INTRODUCTION 1 

1 . Purpose of the Report 

2. Concept of Transit Circumferential 

3. Organization and Limitations on Scope of Work 

B. SERVICE AREA DEFINITION AND INVENTORY 5 

1. Service Area Definition and Description 

2 . Potential Ridership Demand Categories 

3 . Corridor Inventory 

' C. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 25 

1. Initial Range of Technological and Alignment Alternatives Considered 

2. ^Design Constraints 

3. Description and Discussion of Proposed Alternatives 

D . PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT 35 

1. Technological Considerations / 

2. Engineering and Costing Analysis 

3. Staging Possibilities 

.4. Institutional and Funding Questions 

E. EVALUATION OF DEMAND FOR CORE DISTRIBUTION 53 

1. Subarea Analysis of Distribution Demand 

2. Analysis of Alignment Options by Segment 

F 

NETWORK ANALYSIS AND LONGER TERM PLANNING 97 

1. Description of Networks 

2. Network Performance 

3. Network Impacts of Core Distribution Improvement 

4. Regional Distribution of User Benefits 

G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 120 

1. Summary Conclusions 

2. Elements for Future Work Program 



A. INTRODUCTION 

1. Purpose of the Report 

This report is a summary of the work completed by the Boston Transportation 
Planning Review on the proposal for a circumferential transit facility in 
metropolitan Boston. The efforts of the BTPR have been directed towards 
a definition of the need for Circumferential Transit in Boston and a per- 
liminary investigation of possible alternative means of supplying the needed 
service and of the feasibility of these alternatives. A major portion of 
this work has involved analysis of the possible application of Personal 
Rapid Transit (PRT) technology to the Transit Circumferential situation; 
and this mode emerges as a strong, though not exclusive, candidate for supplying 
this service . 

This report is intended to be the basis for a further technical study of 
the Transit Circumferential, and to define the work program requirements 
for such a study, leading to detailed design, feasibility analysis, and 
implementation strategy. The initiation of this technical study should be 
related to participation in the programs of the Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration for implementation of PRT technology in urban situations. 

Interest in participation in this program has already been expressed by EOTC 
Secretary Alan Altshuler to Carlos Villarreal, Administrator of UMTA, with specific 
mention given to the possible application to the circumferential movement problem. 

■ i- 



The efforts of the BTPR in the Transit Circximferential investigation have 
included the following major aspects, which are summarized in this report: 

• definition of need and inventory of traffic generators in 
the service area 

• design of transit alternatives considered 

• personal rapid transit investigations, including technological 
considerations, alignment design, engineering and costing, and 
institutional and funding questions. 

• evaluation of ridership demand 

• long-term planning considerations 



2. Concept of Transit Circumferential 

As shown in Figure 1, the Transit Circumferential is intended to serve the 
"Fringe of Core" area — the area contiguous to downtown Boston which serves 
functionally as an extension of the Core, with a heavy concentration of 
major regional commercial, institutional and educational facilities. The 
heavy level of travel demand for the activities already in the area, plus 




CIRCUMFERENTIAL TRANSIT CONCEPT PLAN 



FIG.1 



CORE AREA 1200 



3600 



6000 FEET 




Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2011 with funding from 

Boston Public Library 



http://www.archive.org/details/circumferentialtOOmass 



the potential for expanded Cora development into this ring, argue for 
extension of Core-level transit accessibility to this area. 

This attitude is based on a concept for the development of metropolitan 
Boston which envisages the expansion of core intensity functions beyond 
the traditional center of the Government Center-Financial District-Retail 
Core-Back Bay area. This expanded core includes Charlestown, the B & M 
yards area of East Somerville, Kendall Square-MIT, the Kenmore -Fenway and 
Dudley Square areas, the South End, and the Fort Point Channel region of 
South Boston, This is an area that was to be served by the Inner Belt 
highway, the rejection of which leaves a gap in the regional travel service 
pattern and a heavy unmet travel demand — a need which the Transit 
Circumferential could in part fulfill. 

The expanded core is an area both of potential extension of core commercial 
activity, and of already regionally dominant institutional activity. The 
core commercial functions have in the recent past begun to penetrate the 
area, as evidenced in the office complexes constructed around Kendall Square; 
and there is the near-future prospect of more such intense development in 
the Kendal 1-Lechmere area. South Boston, and the B & M yards. Bringing high-grade 
service to the institutional concentrations in this area recognizes the importance 
of this activity as a basic factor in Boston's national significance and 
a primary element in the regional economy. The circumferential ring is 
dominated by a great density of major institutions (See Figure 2) including 
MIT, Boston University, Harvard Medical School and its associated hospitals, 
Simmons College , Boston State College , the Museum of Fine Arts , Northeastern 
University, Wentworth Institute, Boston City Hospital, and B.U. Medical 
Center, to mention only the very largest — that have witnessed a great 
intensification of activity within the last decade. These major trip- 
generators represent a vast unmet demand area for public transportation. 

In conjunction with the concept of providing service to the expanded core, 
the Transit Circumferential is meant to provide an alternative movement 
pattern to the strictly radial system now in existence — a system that 
requires arduous "radial-in and transfer to radial-out" trips to gain 
access to many destinations in this area. The new facility would offer- 
accessibility via crosstown movement along the circumference of the expanded 
core, bypassing the intersection of radial lines at the old downtown center. 
This would also give relief to the over-congested stations and links of 
the central subway system- 

The Transit Circumferential would intercept: all the radial transit lines 
it crosses, permitting direct transfer between facilities. The primary 
function of the circumferential would be as a distributor from these radials 
to the intense demand areas of the fringe. Secondarily, it would serve 
line-haul circumferential corridor movements , and only incidentally a collector 
function in certain residential areas. The benefits the Transit Circum- 
ferential offers are as a functioning part of the overall transit network 
more than as a facility by itself — in the decongestion of the core and 
the distribution improvement for the radial lines. 




BOSTON AND MAINE '^. 
RAILROAD YARDS 



<J^ 



EAST CAMBRIDGE 



WASHINGTON 

ELMS AND 

NEWTOWNE 

COURT 

HOUSING 

PROJECTS SQUARE 



AMERICAN 
BILTRITECO. 



CARR FASTENER CO. 



TRANSPORTATION 
TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS CENTER 



BADGER CO. 



POLAROID 



«»i___ KENDALL SQUARE M' >f 

3IDC0RP "■'■"-i« CAMBRIDGE GATEWAY %' J^M 

NGLAND *■"""■■«» 



NEW ENGLAND 
CONFECTIONARY 









,,_ BOSTON UNIVERSITY :MSS^ifZ')l%^^ ^<*' 

OMMONWE;,,^--.. KENMORESQUARE ^'"f 

BROOKLINE '"'"^^"^'JP' v.. \ 

COTTAGE FARM , ,*»* •-.-.-• » 

N1IQHB0RH00D^^\^&.**^ / 

ruetP" ' FENWAY, „ ~ s-> -,- , - . / 



I 
I 
I 



,.ttl"""""""""""«IlM„ 



r- — 



SOUTH 'X 
STATIC N.J' V 

/ I 

SOUTH / / 
POSTAL .• / 
ANNEX-^— / 
/ / 
/ / 



/ 



^-' ^V*^ WHEELOCK 
-^'^* COLLEGE 

-'^S^ EMMANUEL 



COLLEGE 



FENWAY AREA 



AL 



SIMMONS 
COLLEGE 



'MASS 

MENTAL 
HpAUTH 



MUSEUM OF 
FINE ARTS .^* 



.^f 



i8iusiBI&''^.'' 



I^feps Wm. 

J ; CHILDREN'S 

If f; JIM fty^OSfvr^L gg97C 

aigl^ffSbtllGE ..'VANJW0«TH 
SCHOOL ^^' 

ENTER SIiJhA^iI'*^ .*»*** MISSION HILL 

HOSPITAL .^ HOUSING PROJECTS 

^'fklGHAM CtflCLE 



R 

«»' 

MEI 
INSTITUTE 







# BQSTOa'--" 
HERALD- 
TRAVELER 



MBTA 
SOUTH 
BOSTON 
YARDS 



?■■• LOWER 
ROXBURY 

INNER BELT 



it 

\« N.ENG. 
-u>, BAPTIST 



V^ HOSPITAL 



PARKER HILL Q;" 

NEIGHBORHOOD J.f 



CAMPUS HIGH 
URBAN RENEWAL 
AREA 



ROXSE, 

CAMDEN AND ^ 
LENOX ST. y 
HOUSING y 
PROJECTS y 

CORRIDOR ' 

/ GREEN 

y SHOE CO 

^ ORCHARD PARK 
Oj- 



sncTOM BOSTON 

BOSTON FLOWER 

UNIVERSITY EXCHANGE 

MEDICAL EXCHANl>E 

CENTER 



fGILETTECO. 

I 
I 
i 
I 

^1 

-"•BROADWAY 

° I HOUSING .. 
ciPROJECT 



BOSTON CITY 
HOSPITAL 



HOUSING PROJECT 



^. DBERT a. 
;x BRIGHAM 

J5 HOSPITAL 

/^JAMAICA PLAIN 






«'■ DUDUEYw^SQUARE 

■ ' ROXBURY HIGHLANDS / "O^^i'S'' 
! MUNJCIPAL 



CENTER 




\ V 



« / WASHINGTON 
jP/ park URBAN 

4' " " 



KEY 



RENEWAL AREA 






<$^ ROXBURY 




-•-•- LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 
— — RAPID TRANSIT 
■■•■•■ COMMUTER RAIL 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION 



FIG. 2 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



I — l_J — LJ 



1200 



2400 



4800 FEET 




The Transit Circiimf erential , and particularly the potential implementation 
of a PRT facility in this corridor, should be seen as the first piece of 
an improved central distribution system for the Boston metropolitan region. 
The segment proposed in this report as a demonstration project is a valu- 
able and viable service in itself, but is also a demonstration of the 
potential for a higher level of distribution service for the entire expanded 
core. Thus the facility discussed here could be an initial stage in the 
development of an extended PRT network, expanding high-intensity transit 
coverage to areas not now served. 

3. Organization and Limitations on Scope of Work 

The efforts of the Boston Transportation Planning Review in studying a 
circumferential transit facility have been focused primarily on the 
segment of the expanded core ring running from South Station, through the 
Dudley-Fenway-Kenmore area to an intersection with the Red Line in Cambridge. 
This is the area of greatest immediate demand, with the heaviest concentration 
of institutional trip-generators and the most imminent expansion of core- 
commercial activity. This is the likely location for an initial demonstration 
project of PRT technology. In addition, some overview has been given to the 
larger system and potential service extensions beyond this limited corridor. 

The work has been co-ordinated with and has received supportive efforts 
from several outside organizations: MIT Urban Systems Laboratory, in the 
person of John Lawson; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office 
of Transportation and Construction, the Boston Redevelopment Authoirty, 
the MBTA, and various private developers, manufacturers and institutions. 

The BTPR work process has consisted of the following tasks: 

• Inventory of existing physical and environmental conditions 
in the corridor. 

• Inventory of existing and potential traffic generators. 

• Definition of potential service characteristics. 

• Design of alternative transit facilities , including three 
phases — identification of preliminary routes and technologies 
for further study; sketch planning of alternate routes, vertical 
alignments and technological modes; design development of 
selected alternatives. 

• Investigation of technological characteristics, with particular 
emphasis on Personal Rapid Transit technology. 

• Public meetings and specific interest-group contacts (institutions, 
community groups, agencies, manufacturers) to gather background 
data and to elicit reactions to initial proposed alternatives. 



• Preliminary engineering design for purposes of costing and feasibility 
analysis of alternatives. 

• Network development for computer modeling and simulation. 

• Manual and computer-modelled evaluation of system, point-to-point and 
station ridership demand for initial and long-range systems. 

• Preliminary exposure of issues and problems of implementation 
strategies, institutional situations, and funding possibilities. 

The goal of the BTPR efforts on the Transit Circumferential has been the 
definition of a need for service and the exposure of alternative means of 
supplying that service. The work has not been directed toward the final 
determination of alignment, technological mode, feasibility and imple- 
mentation procediores. Rather, the investigation has been oriented to 
building the case for and defining the direction of a further study to 
complete the task. 

Given the time and staff effort available, the scope of the work has necessarily 
been limited. The investigation of some aspects has been taken only through the 
initial round of work-on technological characteristics, and on engineering 
and costing of alternatives. The definition and inventory of need, choice 
of corridor, and design of alternative alignments and evaluation of demand 
have been taken much further, although these depend on feasibility analysis 
and specific technology considerations before final decisions can be reached. 
Some aspects have only seen exposure of the problems or alternatives to be 
investigated, with no major effort yet applied to analyzing and resolving 
the questions — implementation strategies, institutional and funding 
considerations, and the comparison of different PRT and other available 
technologies for their service levels and costs. The levels of progress 
on these different work items suggest the range of work required in a 
further technical study, as will be defined later in this report. 



B. SERVICE AREA DEFINITION AND INVENTORY 

1, Service Area Definition and Description 

The service area for the Transit Circumferential on which the BTPR has focused is 
that segment of a ring around downtown Boston running from a Red Line intersection 
at South Station, through the Dudley Square and Fenway-Kenmore areas, to a Red Line 
intersection in Cambridge (See Figure 2) , This corridor is the prime area of ex- 
panded core activity, with its great concentration of major institutions and its 
recently developed extensions of core commercial functions. It is an area of heavy 
existing transit demand - with intense trip-generation among employees, students, 
patients and visitors - which is under serviced by the present transit system. And 
it is an area of great potential growth in transit usage, both from continuing 
institutional and commercial expansion, and from attraction and inducement by a high- 
quality transit service not before offered in any form. It is the corridor of the 
now-rejected Inner Belt highway, which was intended to meet a very heavy demand for 
circiomferential and cross-town movement, part of which could be satisfied by a 
Transit Circumferential facility. 

Within the corridor, the sector of heaviest transit service need is the Kenmore- 
Fenway area, from the Charles River to the Relocated Orange Line. It is the area 
of the densest concentration of institutional population in metropolitan Boston — 
and thus a major resource to the region's prominence — including Boston University, 
Wheelock, Emmanuel and Simmons Colleges, Boston English and Boys Latin High Schools, 
the Gardner Museum and the Museiom of Fine Arts, Harvard Medical School and its many 
associated hospitals, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Boston State College, 
Wentworth Institute and Northeastern University. It also covers the Kenmore Square 
retail area, the light industrial/warehousing activity in the vicinity of Fenway Park, 
and the residential neighborhoods of Longwood and Cottage Farm in Brookline, and the 
Fenway and Brigham Circle areas of Boston, including the Mission Hill housing 
projects. 

This area is presently served by the four Green Line radials, and potentially by 
a Relocated Orange Line radial — all of which a circumferential facility would 
intersect. But the generators in this area also have strong need for "crosstown" 
transit accessibility for residential origins and for interaction with other 
institutions, from the Cambridge-Northwest area and from Roxbury-South Boston and 
South. These movements are at present very difficult to make via transit. It is 
necessary to travel downtown on other radial lines and then reverse transfer out 
via the Green Line. 

To the east of the Relocated Orange Line, the circumferential corridor encompasses 
the 5000-student Campus High School, already under construction, and the Dudley 
Square area, the major retail and community facility center for the Roxbury com- 
munity. At Dudley it intersects the alignment of the proposed new radial transit 
line running from downtown to Mattapan Square, and thus the circumferential would 
offer transit distribution to the heavily transit-dependent, predominantly black 
population along this corridor. This area of the corridor includes the residential 
community of Lower Roxbury, with many old and new housing projects, and the major 
development potential in the cleared land of the Inner Belt corridor. 



Northeast of Dudley the circumferential corridor covers a major light industrial/ 
warehousing area continuing to the vicinity of South Station. This area also 
includes the large complexes of Boston City Hospital and Boston University Medical 
Center. These hospitals serve especially a lower-income, and therefore transit- 
dependent population; they also have strong functioning interactions with the 
previously-mentioned medical and educational facilities in the circumferential 

corridor, and thus a need for accessibility. The termination of this segment 
of the corridor at South Station provides intersection with and distribution from 
the Red Line South, the heaviest travelled radial, and the proposed South Station 
Transportation Center, the region's major train and bus terminal. 

On the Cambridge side of the Charles River, several alternative corridor-align- 
ments exist. The foremost option follows the Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way 
from the B.U. Bridge to a Red Line intersection at Kendall Square. This serves 
an area which includes MIT, with its large student and employee population, and a 
vast commercial-light-industrial-research-and-development territory. The Kendall 
Square area in particular is the major office development center outside the 
downtown core, with such recent complexes as Technology Square, the Transportation 
Systems Center, and Cambridge Gateway. This is also the prime focus of imminent 
further extension of office development activity, including several privately planned 
projects and the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority's Kendall Square Renewal Project. 
This option readily permits extension through East Cambridge to the East Somerville- 
B&M yards area and completion of the loop to North and South Stations. 

A second option is a corridor through Cambridgeport, a dense lower-to-middle income 
residential community with industrial areas on its eastern edge, to Central Square. 
Central Square is an important retail center, and the major municipal government 
and social service agency location for the city, but with relatively limited com- 
mercial office activity and development potential. This alignment would permit 
extension via Inman Square, Cambridge, and Union Square, Somerville, to East 
Somerville and beyond. However, for an alignment to Central Square, and beyond, 
there is no readily available right-of-way comparable to the Grand Junction Railroad. 

The third option is a corridor through the Cambridgeport and Riverside communities, 
past a small industrial area and several development sites along the Charles River, 
to Harvard Square. Harvard Square is a large and growing retail and office center, 
the major population concentration of Harvard University and the proposed John F. 
Kennedy Memorial Library, as well as considerable private commercial development 
possibilities. This alternative stretches the circumferential out of the true 
expanded core area, partly duplicating the radial service provided by the Red Line, 
and would be very difficult to extend into a completion of the circumferential loop. 
Harvard Square might more appropriately lie on a second, furth r-out circumferential 
route. As in the Central Square alternative, there is no readily available right- 
of-way comparable to the Grand Junction Railroad. 

Several other corridors for extensions or spurs of a circumferential facility have 
been briefly investigated, but viewed as separate questions for future considera- 
tion. These include: 1. Completion of the circumferential loop from Cambridge 
through East Somerville, Charlestown and North Station, to South Station. The 
important North to South Station connection should be considered as part of the 
general downtown distribution and Central Artery question; and service to the East 
Somerville B&M yards area should be co-ordinated with potential development of 
the site, which is still a future prospect. 2. Service to the South Boston In- 
dustrial Development Area and Logan Airport. This depends on uncertain development 
plans for the area, and resolution of the third harbor crossing issue, which is 
discussed in a separate BTPR report. 3. Connection to Columbia Point and U. Mass.- 
Boston, where the MBTA is presently considering implementing new transit service. 



This represents a lower-demand Red Line intersection point then South Station, par- 
ticularly since the Quincy Branch of the Red Line does not stop at Columbia Station, 
and partly duplicates the radial service; but as a future spur it would provide 
valuable institutional interconnection and seirvice to a poorly served low-income 
area. 

Within the primary corridor considered, from South Station to Kendall Square, 
there is a total population among the major generators of over 80,000 students 
and 75,000; jobs. In addition, there are more than 2,900,000 patients-visits and 
1,100,000 museum visits per year. The large number of students, lower income 
employees and lower income residents to be served are particularly transit-dependent 
and in need of improved facilities. The potential demand for a circumferential 
transit facility in this corridor is approximately 35,000 riders per day in each 
direction. 



2. Potential Ridership Demand Categories 

The potential demand for a circumferential transit facility falls into four 
movements patterns: 

• Circumferential as distributor from radial transit facilities 

to destinations within the corridor. This includes the bulk of the 
home-to-work trips in the corridor, and general institutional, com- 
mercial and residential access. This is by far the largest service 
demand for a circxomferential transit facility. 

• Movement from one radial, via circumferential, to another radial 
line — a very minor demand. 

• Circiomferential Corridor Line Haul — from origin to destination 
both within the corridor. This includes some home- to-work trips, and 
inter^institutional and inter-commercial movement. The inter- 
ihstitutional travel particularly should increase considerably in 
the future, and should be prone to inducement by the initiation of a 
service facility, in accordance with the expected growth in 
institutional facility-sharing and joint programs. 

• Local Movements, internal to the various institutional and commercial 
complexes in the corridor. The ability to offer such essentially 
pedestrian-aid service depends on the type and scale of transit 
facility implemented. 

3. Corridor Inventory 

The data that follows summarizes the information collected concerning traffic 
generators within the Circumferential Transit Corridor described above. It is 
presented as an inventory of the major existing and planned traffic generators along 
the corridor, which represent the potential demand for a circumferential transit 
facility, with vol\imes of user population, where available. These generators are 
divided into three categories - commercial, residential, and institutional/govern- 
mental - with numbers keyed to separate maps for each category. 



This inventory represents the information collected from those traffic generators 
with which contact has been made or on which data was readily available. These 
are generally the larger generators in the corridor. Thus, the data is incomplete 
and uneven. In addition, there are uncertainties in future developments and 
changes in movement patterns over the time until a Transit Circumferential is 
implemented, in the potential mode split between transit and automobile to be 
expected, and in the induced travel demand and induced development that such a 
facility will cause. Nonetheless, this inventory of major generators gives a < 

sense of the type and magnitude of demand in the service area, and should offer j 
ample evidence of the high intensity of service need the area described i 

represents — to supplement the specific ridership demand projections that will 
be presented in Sections E and F. 



Major Commercial Generators - Existing (See Figure 3) 

1. South Station 

2. Gilette Company - Safety Razor Division 

3. Cliflex Bellows Corp. 

4. Court Square Press 

5. Quincy Market Cold Storage and Warehouse Co. 

6. Boston and Taunton Transportation Co. 

7. New Boston Food Market 

8. Rapid Service Press 

9. Record American and Herald Traveler 

10. Peerless Sportswear Co. 

11. Hub Mail Advertising Service - printing and direct mail 

12. Graybar Electric Co. - electric supplies 

13. Westinghouse Electric Corp. 

14. Summerf ield' s Furniture Co. 

15. Quinzani Bros. Bakery 

16. Plymouth Manufacturing Co. - coats 

17. Relief Printing Corp. 

18. P.J. O'Donnel Co. - construction equipment 

19. Miller and Hollis Corp. - candy 

20. New England Nuclear Corp. - radioactive chemicals 

21. Boston Flower Exchange 

22. Downes Lumber Co. 

23. American Brush Co. 

24. Samuel Hurwitz Co. - pliimbing supplies 

25. Abbott Equpment Co. 

26. New England Provision Co. 

27. Blacker and Shepard Lumber 

28. Bay State Truck Lease Co. 

29. Mechanics Iron Foundry Co. 

30. James F. Morse and Co. - tallow greases 

31. Howard Storage and Disposal 

32. Blanchard Liquors 

33. Baltimore Brushes, Inc. 

34. Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. - Striderite Shoe 

35. Capitol Tire and Rubber Co. 

36. Grey Lines Trucking Co. 

37. Gray Lines Sightseeing Co. - bus "arage 

38. Harrison Supply Co. 

39. Blair's Foodland g 



2,500 


employees 


90 


If 


440 


11 



85 

65 

200 



40 
400 
180 

250 
90 



85 



350 



75 
70 



65 

1,700 

80 



70 



40. Community Opportunities Industrial Centers 

41. Dudley Square retail and commercial area - 183 
businesses; 80% employ fewer than 10 persons; customers 
primarily from Roxbury, Dorchester, Jamaica Plain and South End; 
employees divided evenly between area and non-area residents; 
MBTA bus terminal and rapid transit station 

42. Modern Electroplating Co. - Modern Enameling Corp. 

43. International Manufacturing Co. - juvenile products 

44. Circle Supply Co. 

45. A.E. Halperin Co. - medical appliances 

46. Armour and Co. - wholesale meats 

47. Hammond Stationery Co. 

48. Clayton Manufacturing Co. 

49. Boston Showcase Co. 

50. Trimount Clothing Co. 

51. Great Eastern Packing and Paper Stock Corp. 

52. Hy-Grade Enameling co. 

53. Donnelly Electric and Manufacturing Co. 

54. Brigham Circle - local shopping center 

55. Sears Roebuck and Co. - surplus store 

56. Luby Chevrolet 

57. Fenway-Boylston Motor Hotel 

58. Fenway Park Baseball Stadium 

59. Buck Printing Co. 

60. S.S. Pierce Co. - main office 

61. Vatco Manufacturing Co. - furniture and auto slipcovers 

62. American Science and Engineering 

63. Kenmore Square retail area 

64. Fenway-Commonwealth Motor Hotel 

65. Cosmopolitan Manufacturing Cc. - men's coats 
56. A.T. Howard Co. - printer 

67. Nimrod Press 

68. Beckwith Elevator Co. 

69. Back Bay Motors 

70. Peter Fuller's Cadillac-Olds 

71. Polaroid Corp. - Camera Division 

72. Jordan Marsh Warehouse 

73. Abcor Inc. 

74. Northeastern Distributors 

75. Joyce Chen Restaurant 

76. William Simpson Co. 10 



90 


employees 


75 


II 


80 


II 


275 


II 


40 


II 


50 


II 


900 


II 



32,000 
150 

300 



250 

100 

70 

100 



1,000 

80 

110 
40 
40 



seat capacity 
employees 



77. 

78. 

79. 

80. 

81. 

82. 

83. 

84. 

85. 

86. 

87. 

88. 

89. 

90. 

91. 

92. 

93. 

94, 

95. 

96. 

97. 

98. 

99. 
100. 
101. 
102. 
103. 
104. 
105. 
106. 
107. 
108. 
109. 
110. 
111. 
112. 

113. 
114. 



California Products Corp. - paint 

North American Chemical Co, 

Cox Engineering Co, 

Stewart Trucking Co . 

James E. McCusker 

G . H . Harnum 

St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. 

Cambridge Tire Co. 

Kubar USA/International 

Man Labs, Inc, 

Cigarette Service Co, 

Dynatech Corp, 

Boston Pipe and Fittings 

Atlantic Paper Box Co, 

Lynn-Sign Moulded Plastic Co. 

Northern Research and Engineering 

Polaroid Corp, - General Services Division 

H.J. Heinz Co, 

Nabisco 

Paramount Coat Co, 

Goddess-Revelation Bra Co, 

Computek 

Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc. 

Delbrook Engineering 

Bay State Petroleum Co, 

KLH Research and Development 

New England Confectionery Co, 

Tech Coop - department store 

Technology Garage 

Nabisco Confections 

Blanchard Machine Co. 

Polaroid Corp, - Research Division 

Cambridge Rubber 

General Latex and Chemical Corp, 

Polaroid Corp, - Executive Offices 

Technology Square - three 9-floor buildings, one 
3-floor; 500,000 sq, ft,; completed 1963-66; includes 
Polaroid Executive Offices and NASA as major tenants 



New England Electrotype Corp. 
American Electroplating Co. 



55 


employees 


35 


11 


100 


II 


50 


II 


70 


II 


90 


II 


360 


II 


115 


II 


100 


II 


55 


II 


35 


II 


135 


II 


35 


II 


100 


II 


55 


•1 


60 


II 


200 


II 


40 


II 


70 


■1 


55 


II 


300 


II 


70 


■1 


250 


II 


50 


II 


75 


II 


260 


II 


550 


II 


100 


II 


50 


II 


375 


II 


410 


II 


1,000 


II 


55 


II 


75 


II 


1,000 


■1 


2,050 


II 


100 


II 



11 



65 



115. Capitol Engineering 

116. College Seal and Crest Co. 

117. Colony House 

118. Data Packaging Corp. 

119. American Biltrite Rubber Co. - Boston Woven Hose and 
Rubber Division 

120. Metropolitan Pipe and Supply Co. 

121. Stahleker Steel Corp. 

122. Dowd Co. 

123. George B. Robbins Disinfecting Co. 

124. Anheiser Busch Inc. 

125. Industrial Service Centers 

126. New England Telephone and Telegraph 

127. Icon Corp. 

128. Industrial Wire and Cable 

129. Sweetheart Cups Corp. 

130. Cambridge Gas 

131. Peter Gray Corp. 

132. Unico Service Corp. 

133. Cuneo Press of New England 

134. Wright Offset Plate Co. 

135. Carter's Ink Co. 

136. Badger Co. 

137. Cambridge Gateway - One Broadway; 16-floor office 
building; 220,000 sq, ft,; completed 1970; includes 
Badger Co. and New England Bankard Association as 
major tenants 

138. Electronics Corp. of America 

139. National Research Corp. 

140. F.S. Webster 

141. Kendall Square Building - office building 

142. Suffolk Building - office building 

143. MIT Press 

144. University Clothing Corp. 

145. Polaroid Corp. - Polarizer Division 

146. Carr Fastener, Inc. 

147. Brighams 

148. UBS Chemical Co. 

149. Owen McGarrahan 

150. Myerson Tooth Corp. 

151. Acme Glass Co. 



50 
75 

65 
235 

800 

40 

40 

105 

110 

160 

85 

245 

40 

40 

100 

200 

50 

300 

450 

50 

130 

700 



880 
725 

40 
150 
300 
100 

60 

50 
1,000 
950 

70 
170 
160 
140 

60 



employees 



152. Jeremiah Sullivan and Sons 

153. Wheeler Service, Inc. 

154. American Cleaning Co. 

155. Fenton Show Corp. 

156. Simeone's Italian American Restaurant 

157. Central Square retail and commercial area - 118 
retail stores; considerable office and govern- 
mental activity; in retail and personal 
services approximately — 

158. Krohn-Hite Corp. 

159. Purity-Supreme Supermarket 

160. TAD Inc. 

161. Central. Plaza Building - 675 Mass. Ave.; 14-floor 
office building; 130,000 sq. ft.; completed 1968 

162 . New England Telephone and Telegraph 

163. New England Gas and Electric Association- Service Corp. 

164. Clark and Reid Co. 

165. Stop and Shop Supermarket 

166. Fenway-Cambridge Motor Hotel 

167. Advent Corp. 

168. Elbery Motor Corp. 

169. Riverside Press 

170. Orion Research Inc. 

171. Block Engineering 

172. New England Bookbinding 

173. Cambridge Electric Light Co. 

174. Digilab, Inc. 

175. Yellow Cab Co. 

176. American Science and Engineering Building - 955 Mass. 
Ave.; 8-floor building; 83,000 sq. ft.; completed 1971 

177. Shea Dry Cleaners 

178. Harvard Student Agencies 

179. Orson Welles - Theater, Fim School and Restaurant 

180. 1033 Mass Ave. - 6 floors; 65,000 sq. ft.; completed 
1969 

181. Urban Systems Research Engineering 

182. New England Telephone and Telegraph 

183. Broadway Supermarket 

184. International Business Machines 

185. Harvard Square retail and commercial area - 126 retail 
stores; major office and institutional activity; in 
retail and personal services approximately- 



55 


employees 


45 


fi 


850 


II 


450 


II 


60 


II 



2,500 
90 
80 

100 

520 
60 

250 
50 

100 

150 
80 
60 

500 
80 
80 
45 

350 
50 

200 

330 
60 

600' 
60 

280 
40 

410 
45 

150 



4,500 



186. Cambridge Trust Co. 

187 . The Spaghetti Emporium 

188. Academia, Inc. 

189. Harvard Cooperative Society - The Coop 

190. Harvard Trust Co. 

191. Touraines 

192. Treadway Motorhouse 

193. Educational Development Center 

194. 44 Brattle St. - 5-floor office and retail building; 
completed 1972 

195. Design Research 

196. The Architects Collaborative 

197. 51 Brattle St. - medical office building 



100 
90 
55 
460 
395 
50 
30 

75 

240 
40 

220 
100 



employees 



Major Commercial Generators - Proposed (See Figure 3) 

A. South Station Development Project - train and 
bus terminal; 5,000-car parking garage; office 
and hotel space. 

B. Potential industrial and commercial development 
sites in Inner Belt corridor. 

C. Campus High Urban Renewal Area —retail and commercial 

D. Holiday Inn Motel - eighteen floors 

E. Simplex properties - MIT-owned; primarily housing, 
with commercial support facilities. 

F. 555 Technology Square - 25-30 floor office building; 
600,000 sq. ft.; plus possible motor hotel; 

completion 1972-75. 2,400 employees 

G. Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project - Cambridge 
Redevelopment Authority; "Golden Triangle" section- 
13 acres; development over next 15-20 years; see also 
housing summary; 

Office buildings - 1,000,000 sq. ft. 4,000 " 

Retail space - 185,000 sq. ft. 

Motor hotel 400 rooms 

Relocate bus terminal and extend Red Line station 

3,100 parking spaces 

H. Cambridge Gateway - phase two; 2 Kendall Sq. ; 

16-floor office building; 220,000 sq. ft; completion 

1972-75 880 employees 

I. MD&M Development Company project - 

Phase 1 - 21-floor motor hotel 375 rooms 

Phase 2 - 12-floor office building; 300,000 sq. ft. 1,200 employees 

J. 595 Mass. Ave. - 10-20 floor office building; 

200,000 sq. ft.; completion 1975 800 

K. Holiday Inn Motel - sixteen floors. 



14 




MAJOR COMMERCIAL GENERATORS IN 
CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



FIG. 3 



CORE AREA 1200 



3600 



6000 FEET 




Major Residential Generators - Existing (See Figure 4) 



27. 
28. 
29. 



30. 
31. 



972 D.U. 



508 D.U. 



364 D.U. 

306 D.U. 

72 D.U. 



1. Broadway (D Street) Housing - public housing 

2. South Boston residential area 

3 . Cathedral Housing - public housing 

4. South End residential area 

5. ROXSE/Campfield Gardens-subsidized housing, under 
construction 

6. Lenox Street - public housing 

7. Camden Street - public housing 

8. Westminster Place - subsidized housing, under 
construction 

9. Housing project under construction 

10. Tucke2:man Homes - subsidized housing, under 
construction 

11. Orchard Park - public housing 

12. Washington Park Urban Renewal Area 

13 . Warren Gardens - subsidized housing 

14. St. Joseph's Housing - subsidized housing 

15. Roxbury Highlands residential area 

16. Lower Roxbury residential area 

17. Whittier Street - public housing 

18. Mission Hill Extension - public housing 

19. Mission Hill - public housing 

20. Charlesbank Towers, Back Bay Manor, and Back Bay Towers 

21. Parker Hill residential area 

22. Fenway/Park Drive residential area 

23. Longwood Towers - apartment complex 

24. Longwood neighborhood, Brookline 

25. Cottage Farm neighborhood, Brookline 

26. Neighborhood 2, Cambridge - MIT and related industrial/ 
research area; residential population 60% students in 

group quarters or married student housing. Population 4,047; 788. D.U, 



280 D.U. 
774 D.U. 

227 D.U. 
137 D.U. 



200 D.U. 

588 D.U. 

1,023 D.U. 



Westgate - MIT married student housing 
Eastgate - MIT married student housing 



210 D.U. 
204 D.U. 



Cambridgeport , Neighborhood 5 - residential area with 
industrial/commercial along railroad edge and river- 
front; working class area, but increasing transient 
population; low median rents. Population 9, 170; 3, 557 D.U. 



Woodrow Wilson Court - public housing 



69 D.U. 



Riverside, Neighborhood 7 - Harvard student housing 
along riverfront, residential behind to Mass. Ave. ; 
nigh percentage black population and female-headed households 

Population 9747 3,081 D.U. 



32. Putnam Gardens - public housing 123 D.U. 

33. Peabody Terrace - Harvard married student housing 

34. Putnam Square Apartments - elderly housing 94 D.U. 

35. Neighborhood 4 - Southern half of Model Cities 
Neighborhood; high percentage black population 

and female-headed households; low median rents. Population 7,418; 2,891 D.U. 

36. Newtovme Court: - public housing 294 D.U. 

37. Washington Elms - public housing 324 D.U. 

38. East Cambridge, Neighborhood 1 - family neighborhood; 

low median rents. Population 5,776; 2,083 D.U. 



16 



Major Residential Generators - Proposed (See Figure 4) 

Concord Towers - subsidized housing 

Northampton and Comet Place - elderly housing 234D.U. 

Potential housing sites in Inner "Belt corridor 

Campus High Urban Renewal Area - Lower Roxbury Community 
Corporation; subsidized housing 

Phase 1 - completion late 1973 283 D.U. 

Phase 2 - may begin 1973-74 29 D.U. 

Good Shepherd site - Harvard Medical area housing 

with 2,000-car garage; completion by 1975 800 D.U. 

Simplex properties - MIT owned; housing of unknown 

population mix and financing; likely heavily MIT-related 

residents 1,000-1,500 D.U. 

Kendall Square Urban Renewal Project - Cambridge 

Redevelopment Authority; 

"Golden Triangle" section - 13 acres, with commercial 

development 500 D.U. 

Surplus NASA land - 11 acres; high and low-rise housing; 1,800 D.U. 

ancillary retail and professional offices; 1,400 

parking spaces; possibly begin development 1973 

808 Memorial Drive - 20-floor and 12-floor buildings; 

low, moderate and free-market housing 295 D.U. 



17 




MAJOR RESIDENTIAL GENERATORS IN 
CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDORr- 



FIG.4 



CORE AREA 1200 3600 6000 FEET 




Major Institutional/Governmental Generators - Existing (See Figure 5) 



1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7. 



9. 
10. 
11. 



General Post Office Annex 

MBTA bus garage 

Cathedral of the Holy Cross (Roman Catholic) and school 

South End House 

South End Boy's Club 

Franklin Square House 

Boston University Medical Center - a joint organization of 

B.U. Medical School, B.U. Graduate School of Dentistry, B.U. 

Division of Graduate Medical and Dental Sciences, and 

University Hospital. 

University Hospital: 

Staff 1,735 

Inpatients 6,00C-7,000/yr. 

Outpatient visits 14, 000-15, 000/yr. 

B.U. Medical and Dental Schools 

Students 615 

Faculty 400 

Staff 530 

Population Growth expected: 

600-800 new staff in Mental Health Center now 

under construction 
300 increase in Medical School student population 
120 new students in undergraduate dentistry program 
100 new students (possibly) in Master Health Care 
Administration program. 

B.U. Medical Center has a strong demand for inter-institutional 
trips along the Circumferential Corridor. There is considerable 
movement of students and faculty between B.U.M.C. and Boston 
University Campus on Commonwealth Ave. , both of B.U.M.C. students 
and B.U. students, especially from the School of Nursing and 
Sargent College. There are also affiliations and interaction 
with various hospitals and other medical institutions in and 
near the corridor. 



Boston City Hospital 

Staff 

Inpatients 

Outpatients 

Emergency cases 
Future growth plans, in population and physical 
development, uncertain; a topic of much political dispute. 
Phase I of development plan (nurses' and physicians' resi- 
dences; garage; nursing school; outpatient department) 
now under construction. However, new inpatient tower and 
seirvice buildings may never be funded. 

Is potential for interinstitutional trips along corridor, 
by professionals, most of whom have relationship with other 
institutions. BCH has affiliation with Harvard, B.U. , and 
Tufts Medical Schools. 

Boston Public Works Department 

Boston Traffic and Parking Department 

Boston Fire Department - headquarters and maintenance 

18 



5,000-6,000 

650, 000/yr. 
240, 000/yr. 
140, 000/yr. 



Horace Mann School for the Deaf 

Boys Club of Boston 

Roxbury Municipal Complex - Court House, Police Station and Library 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and' Welfare 

MBTA bus garage 

Norfolk House Center 

First Church in Roxbury Unitarian 

St. Luke's Home for Convalescents 

James P. Timilty Junior High School 

Student Population 525 

Mission Church (Roman Catholic) and school 

New England Baptist Hospital 

Parker Hill Medical Center 

American Red Cross - Massachusetts Blood Program 

Massachusetts Mental Health Center 

The following institutions, numbers 26-39, constitute the Medical 
Area Planning Commission (MAPC) : 

Robert B. Brigham Hospital 

Peter Bent Brigham Hospital 

Boston Hospital for Women - Lying-in and Parkway Divisions 

The above three institutions (numbers 26-28) are the components 
of the proposed Affiliate Hospital Center, for which the following 
data represents a combined total: 

Faculty-Staff 460 

Employees 2,370 

Students 175 

Beds 680 

Outpatient visits 127,000/yr. 

Visitors 329,000/yr. 

29. Children's Hospital Medical Center (CHMC) 

Faculty-Staff 350 

Employees 1,910 

Students 200 

Beds 340 

Outpatient visits 171,000/yr. 

Visitors 385,000/yr. 

30. Children's Mission to Children - data included with 
CHMC above. 

31. Judge Baker Guidance Center - data included with 
CHMC above. 

32. Beth Israel Hospital 

Faculty-Staff 130 

Employees 1,800 

Students 30 

Beds 355 

Outpatient visits 67,000/yr. 

Visitors 19 203,000/yr. 



33. Joslin Diabetes Foundation 

Faculty-Staff 
Employees 
Outpatient Visits 
Visitors 

34. New England Deaconess Hospital (NEDH) 

Faculty-Staff 

Employees 

Students 

Beds 

Outpatient visits 

Visitors 

35. Shields Warren Radiation Laboratory - data included 
in NEDH above. 

36. Children' s Cancer Research Foundation - Jimmy Fund Foundation 



37. 



38. 



39. 



40. 

41. 
42. 
43. 

44. 
45. 
46. 

47. 
48. 
49. 





25 




125 


11. 


, 000/yr 


17 


, 000/yr 




15 


1, 


,500 




140 




360 


4, 


, 000/yr 


146, 


, 000/yr 



Faculty-Staff 
Visitors 

Harvard Medical School (HMS) 
Faculty-Staff 
Employees 
Students 
Outpatient visits 

Harvard School of Public Health 
HMS above. 



280 
16, 000/yr, 

665 
965 
1,135 
15, 000/yr. 



data included in 



Harvard School of Dental Medicine - date included in 
HMS above. 

All of the above MAPC institutions project substantial growth 
in the next decade, with some new construction already under- 
way, though expansion programs are being curtailed to some 
extent due to changing medical economic climate. 

The MAPC complex, because of its large size and inta- 
connections, is a prime case of the need for intra-complex 
transportation. There are also considerable affiliations 
and needs for interconnection with other institutions in the 
corridor. 

Angell Memorial Animal Hospital - Massachusetts Society 
For the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 

Massachusetts College of Pharmacy 
Health, Inc. 

Massachusetts College of Art - planning to move to Dover, Mass. 
by 1980; site likely to be taken over by Beth Israel Hospital 

Winsor School 

Temple Israel 

Boston Trade High School 

Student population 590 

Greek Cathedral Church Evangelismos (Eastern Orthodox) 

YMCA 

New England Conservatory of Music 



20 



1 


,700 




950 


23 


,300 




205 




220 


7 


, 000/yr 



The following institutions , numbers 50-62 , constitute the 
Fenway Group: 

50. Northeastern University 

Faculty 
Staff 
Students 
No changes in population expected 

51. Forsyth Dental Center 

Staff 

Students 

Patients 

Patient load likely to increase to more than 27, 000/yr 
based on institution of an Experimental Clinic and funding 
of the National Children's Dental Program. 

52. Museum of Fine Arts 

Staff (including Museiom School) 500 

Visitors 800, 000-1, 000, 000/yr. 

53. Museum of Fine Arts School 

Students 1,050 

54. Wentworth Institute 

Faculty and Staff 175 

Students 2,800 

55. Wentworth College of Technology 

56. Boston State College 

Faculty 345 

Staff 200 

Students 8,500 

Expect eventual expansion undergraduate population 
(presently 4,800) to 10,400; but no timetable projected. 
However, are looking for a new Upper Division (upper 2 
years) campus, elsewhere in Boston area. 

57. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museiom 

Staff 75 

Visitors 150, 000/yr. 

58 . Boys Latin High School 

Faculty and Staff 130 

Students 2,000 

59. Boston English High School 

Faculty and Staff 180 

Students 2,000 

Above figures are for new building under construction, to 
be opened by end of 1972 (parts to be completed September 
1973) . Present structure, to be demolished, has capacity of 
of 1200 students, present population of 500. 

60. Simmons College 

Faculty and Staff 400 

Students 2,200 

Expect increase of 400 students by 1977 . Half of students 

are resident on campus; half commute. 

51. Emmanuel College 

Faculty and Staff 175 

Students 1,300 

No changes in population expected. 900 residential 

students; 400 commuters 21 



500 residential 



62. Wheelock College 
Faculty 

Staff 
Students 

No changes in population expected, 
students; 400 commuters. 

Hebrew College 

St. Dominic's Institute 

New England Hebrew Academy 

American Red Cross 

Salvation Army Center 

Grahm Junior College 

Art Institute of Boston 

Boston University - Charles River Campus 
Faculty 
Staff 
Students 

No plans for major growth in population. 6,800 of 
students accomodated in dorms to East, West, and South 
of academic center of campus. 

Important circumferential line-haul demand for access 
to B.U. Medical Center and Harvard and Affiliated Hospi- 
tals, to B.U. Theatre on Huntington Avenue, and to Museiom 
of Fine Arts. 

71. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

Academic Staff 

Employees 

Students 

2,900 of the students are resident on-campus, with 
housing located primarily along the riverfront west 
of Mass. Ave., and at the extreme east and west ends 
of the campus. 

MIT stretches almost the full length of the B.U. Bridge 
to Kendall Square alternative corridor in Cambridge. 
Thus a circumferential facility in this corridor would 
provide great opportunity for intra-institutional trips 
within the MIT campus, in addition to the inter- 
institutional and home- to-work demand. 

72. Cambridge Redevelopment Authority 

73. Transportation System Center - Department of Transportation; 
expect future growth in staff population, pending 
Congessional action. 

74. MDC Ward 5 World War Veterans Pool - Magazine Beach 

75. Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee 

76. Cambridge Head Start 

77. Cambridge City Demonstration Agency 

78. Cambridge Housing Authority 

22 

79. Central Police Station 



90 

125 
900 



1,000 

3,000 

23,000 



3,015 
4,135 
7,720 



30 employees 



660 
30 
55 
80 
30 
75 
65 



80. Massachusetts Division of Employment Security 

81. Cambridge City Hall - Executive, School and Hospital 
Departments 

82. Central Post Office 

83. YMCA 

84. Massachusetts Division of Employment Security 

85. Cambridge-Somerville Legal Services 

86. Cambridge High and Latin School 

Faculty and Staff 
Students 

87. Cambridge Public Library 

88. Rindge Technical High School 

Faculty and Staff 
Students 

89. Harvard University 

Faculty and Staff 
Students 

With the student residences primarily located along the 
riverfront from Boylston St. to Western Ave., and the 
academic concentration north of Mass. Ave. and Harvard 
Square, there is some potential need for intra-institu- 
tional mobility provided by a circvimferential facility, 
in addition to the inter-institutional and horoe-to-work 
demand . 

90. Cambridge Center for Adult Education 

91. Radcliffe College 

92 . Episcopal Theological School 

93. MBTA rapid transit and bus yards. 



25 

1,750 

285 

55 

50 

30 

175 
2,150 



80 
755 



10,200 
15,000 



employees 



200 



employees 



23 




MAJOR INSTITUTIONAL GENERATORS IN 
CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDORi- 



FIG.5 



CORE AREA 1200 3600 6000 FEET 




Major Institutional/Governmental Generators - Proposed (See Figure 5) 

A. Boston Public Works Department Service Center 

B. MBTA South Boston Yards 

C. Campus High Urban Renewal Project 

High School - Phase I — Academic Houses for 2,500 students, 
approximately 180 faculty and staff; constmction begun in 1971 
but stopped bacause of racial imbalance problem; was scheduled 
to open in September 1973. Phase II, for additional 2,500 
students, is in masterplanning stage, held up pending HUD approval 
of Urban Renewal Plan. 

Community Service Center - construction not to start before 

1973-74. 

Lower Roxbury Elementary School - construction probably 

begin in 1974. 

D. Affiliated Hospital Center - joint facility for Peter Bent 
Brigham Hospital, Robert B. Brigham Hospital, and Boston 

Hospital for Women; to be constructed by 1973-75. 

E. John F. Kennedy Memorial Library and School of Government 



24 



C. TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 



1. Initial Range of Technological and Alignment Alternatives Considered 

The range of alternatives initially considered for the circumferential transit 
facility cover a broad spectrum of technological modes — including bus, 
light rail, rapid transit and personal rapid transit. Within these there is 
considerable variety in level of seirvice, horizontal and vertical alignment, 
and service pattern. Those alternatives that are proposed for further con- 
sideration are described in detail later in this section. The following 
summary discusses the overall range and the alternatives dropped from consideration 
and their reasons for elimination. ^ 



Bus - The alternatives considered for bus service in the circumferential 
corridor include two major sub '-options : 

- Bus routes on existing streets mixed with general-purpose traffic. 

- Exclusive bus right-of-way, utilizing possible new arterial con- 
struction for several segments of the corridor. 

Only the exclusive bus right-of-way approach has been retained for further 
consideration, and it is described in detail later. The option of bus service 
on local streets , competing with general -purpose traffic , is feasible — but 
it provides a very different type and level of service than what we are 
seeking for a Transit Circ\imf erential . The speed of service is drastically 
limited by street traffic conditions, which are quite congested in many parts 
of the circumferential corridor. The slow service is not a viable alternative 
to the radial-in-transfer-to-radial-out pattern for longer circumferential 
trips, though it has some value as a distributor for short trips. It 
certainly does not provide the expanded core with Core-level accessibility. 

However, for local bus service, crosstown routes in the circumferential corridor 

are certainly of value. One such route, from Kenmore Square to City Hospital 

via the Fenway /Medical area and Dudley Square, was instituted by the MBTA on 

a trial basis in April, 1972, after co-ordinated planning by local community 

groups, the BTPR, and the MBTA. This route has proved very successful in 

terms of service and ridership. Another proposed local crosstown bus route 

in the corridor is included in the BTPR Northwest Report. This route runs 

from Kendall Square, via MIT, Central Square, Cambridgeport and Boston University, 

to the Harvard Medical-Brigham Circle area. 

Light Rail - Two types of light rail alternatives have been considered: 

- Primarily in exclusive surface reservation in the median of major 
arterials , with certain segments and intersections grade-separated. 

- Primarily subway and depressed aligimient. 

These alternatives are possible both in independent circumferential and 
circumferential/radial alignment. All these options remain open for further 
consideration, and are described in more detail later. 



25 



Rapid Transit - Full rapid transit alternatives, primarily in sxibway, with 
parts depressed or in existing rail rights-of-way, have been considered 
both for independent circumferential and circumferential radial alignments. 
All have been retained for further study. 

Personal Rapid Transit - The widest range of consideration of alignments 
and service patterns has been given to the PRT technology — partly to investi- 
gate more fully the unknown characteristics of this new technology, and partly 
because of the great flexibility of PRT to accommodate a variety of service 
demand patterns. 

In terms of service pattern, the range considered for the PRT covered a 
spectrum from a simple two-way trunk line-haul approach to a complex net- 
work of one-way loops, covering the circumferential corridor and connecting 
to an eventual extensive loop network distribution system for the entire 
downtown. This loop network approach seemed particularly suited to PRT 
technology, because of its small size and easy switching ability. It would 
provide closer station coverage to a much greater area than a trunk-line 
approach, and could even serve some short-range intra-institutlonal and 
intra-ccmmercial-complex trips as well as its longer transit network move- 
ments. However, with further investigation of design and demand characteristics 
in this corridor, it became evident that the PRT vehicles and structure, and 
particularly the station construction, were not so small and inobtrusive , 
nor as inexpensive, as originally proposed. To accommodate alignments in 
many locations (some initially imagined as integrated into second levels of 
buildings) as the network approach required, and to build very frequent 
stations, seemed environmentally and economically infeasible. Some aspects 
of the concept of a PRT downtown distribution network still seem desirable, 
but at a far larger scale of loop coverage than first considered. And, in 
contrast to the loop network, a two-way trunk line-haul circumferential 
is viable in itself, without extension into an overall downtown system. 
For these reasons the only PRT service pattern continued for further consideration, 
which is described in greater detail later, is a modified version of the two-way 
trunk line-haul concept - with only two one-way loops where particularly 
important demand distribution argued for such a solution. 

The originally considered size range of PRT vehicles was from small (4-6 
passenger) to medium-size (12-20 passengers) . Because of the very high rider- 
ship demand figures that have been calculated for a PRT circiomf erential , and 
the heavy demand concentration in certain areas, the smaller size vehicles 
do not seem feasible and the 20-passenger size has been assumed for all system 
designs and estimates. These will be capable of handling present and future 
projected ridership volumes with no difficulty, given present and near-future 
state-of-the-art PRT operating technology. 

Initial PRT conceptions assumed major portions of the system to be in elevated 
alignment. This was considered a major advantage of PRT — that the small 
size of vehicles and guideway would make it aesthetically acceptible in 
elevated configuration, and also extremely inexpensive. As mentioned above, 
the vehicles required by the heavy demand in this area are not as small as 



26 



originally projected, and neither is the guideway. In addition, design 
consideration of stations and intersections revealed far more massive ele- 
vated structures than had been expected. It is felt that these make an 
elevated system unacceptable in the densely built-up and sensitive environ- 
ment of most of the corridor. Thus the PRT scheme now considered is in 
tunnel or is depressed for much of its length, with only small segments in 
less sensitive areas — as in railroad yards and next to highways — in 
elevated alignment. 

The specific PRT alignment described later represents the result of consider- 
able investigation and refinement, determined primarily on the basis of 
minimization of aesthetic and environmental intrusion, weighed against 
technological feasibility and minimization of cost. The horizontal and 
vertical configuration is chosen wherever possible to utilize a 
readily available corridor witn minimal physical intrusion into residential 
and sensitive institutional environments , and otherwise to be placed in 
tunnel beneath existing public rights of way. 



2. Design Constraints 

The following are the major physical and environmental constraints on the 
design of transit facilities in the circumferential corridor — keyed to 
figure 6. 

1. Intersections with Transit Radials. Travel demand indications that 
circ\imferential distribtuion from radials is the prime functidn 
requires direct transfer with radials, wherever possible. 

2. Kendall Square - Joint design required with Cambridge Redevelopment 
Authority redevelopment proposal, including MBTA rapid transit station 
and bus terminal relocation. 

3. Grand Junction Railroad right-of-way - Integrated design required 
with proposed Cambridge truck route. Joint development possibilities 
with MIT. 

4. Cambridgeport and Riverside Neighborhoods, Cambridge - Dense residential 
neighborhoods with no major through arterials to offer ready alignments. 

5. Charles River Crossing - Environmental impact problems of elevated 
crossing on River and embankment parks. Possible integration with 
existing B.U. Bridge - RR bridge corridor. River and major parallel 
sewers are impediments to tunneling. 

6. Cottage Farm and Longwood Neighborhoods, Brookline - Dense, affluent 
neighborhoods. Residents well-organized and sensitive to aesthetic- 
environmental intrusion. 

7. Fenway - Parkland is registered National Historic Landmark. Extremely 
difficult environmental and 4 (f ) situation for any intrusion on 
park area. 



27 




DESIGN CONSTRAINTS 



FIG. 6 



I — L 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 1200 2400 



1 I 



4800 FEET 



8 . Fenway Group Institutions and Harvard Medical Area - Large con- 
centrations of regionally important institutions. Heavy demand 
area, but difficult to traverse densely-built campuses and com- 
plexes ; aesthetic impact problems . 

9. Inner Belt right-of-way - Integrated design required with proposed 
roadway alternatives. Joint development potential in cleared land. 

10. Dudley Square - For direct service to important retail center and 
transfer to Washington Street transit line, dense commercial distriqt 
with narrow winding streets must be traversed. Phasing relationship 
to removal and replacement of Washington St. Elevated must be con- 
sidered. 

11. South Station Transportation Terminal - Joint design required for 
integration with BRA redevelopment plan for proposed rail-bus- 
automobile terminal. 



3. Description and Discussion of Proposed Alternatives 

There are two major alternative approaches to providing transit service to 
the circxmiferential corridor: 

• Independent Circumferential: A separate facility functioning strictly 
as a circumferential, which would intersect the radials heading towards 
the core and allow transfer from radial to circiamferential to gain 
access to destinations. The technological alternatives within this 
approach include Options 1, 2 and 3: Personal Rapid Transit; Bus 

or Light Rail in Exclusive Right-of-Way; Rail Transit in Subway. 

• Circumferential/Radial: A facility which combines the circiamferential 
function with certain radial and crosstown functions. This would 
intersect some of the radials and allow transfer to circumferential , 
but for certain radial corridors would provide direct service from 
radial to circumferential and require transfer for continuation of 
trips headed downtown. This is represented by Option 4, Circum- 
ferential/Radial Rail Transit. 

Independent Circumferential Options 

Option 1. Personal Rapid Transit 

Predominant effort has been given to developing the PRT option, because this 
new technology seems especially promising and suited for the type of service 
demand in this corridor. The proposed alignment, shown in Figure 7, consists of: 

• Elevated two-way segment from South Station through the MBTA South 
Boston yards, across the Central Artery to an at'-grade station at 



28 




1 ^ '^»2^£yAnDREDliiue f^ TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF CRA 

xl. ^ ""■"■^i^i'Ne jm kENDALL SQUARE RENEWAL PLAW 

KX> Z.ALTERNATIVE 

^/ OR HARVARD jJ)mass.ave./mit *»v 

>s/ SQUARE y^ ^ 

'-^ >k. _■*■ ._ 



0' 



-AT-GRADE AUGNMENT 
ON GRAND JUNCTION 
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 




^(X/ CAMBRIDGEPORT/MIT-WEST 



5 BOSTON UNIVERSITY 




\' i 



GREEN LINE 



Vshield-.»rT^entunn'&u...^, ^ 



« 



/ 



HVTEflMINUS 

. ECiNSTRUCTED 
WITHIN BROPOSEO 
SOUTH ItATION 
TffANS)ORTATiON 
TIRMI|IAL. 

y 




ONE-WAY LOOP in /' J/ 

CUT-AND-COVER AND ^ ^/ 
SHIELD-DRIVEN TUNNEL / Jy 
IN FENWAY / <!^ 



.• BROAD WAY(J) ' 



INSTITUTIONAL AREA 



#•^or?^ 



, — / 



,1^^ COI 

BRIGHAM CIRCLE 



d^y ^''DEPRESSED OR 

.'?2?.^ .of^ /CUT-AND '"'^"'='= 



MEDIAN 



^" 



^-> **^ ^STON STATE 
^^^^ COLLEGE 

^^R 



RUGQLES 



(LES ST. ^>, 



MESSED OR J>-* 
AND-COVER,<S^' 
NMENJIN^O$^^ 
lANOF ^-^ 






ELEVATED—/ 
ALIGNMENT / 

f 



NNER BE 
lOADWA^ 



/£ 



i 



p8jedP 




MAINTENANCE 
FACILITY 



WASHINGTON ST. 



>^" (?) WA 

Tdu 




fBOSTON CITY HOSPITAL/ 
Bll.MEDICALCENTER 



_ DUDLEY STATION 

i 
i 
i 
t 




^1 

ul 

I! 
^1 

m» 

<l 

I 

I 

I 

/ 

/ 

\ 



« PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT 

® PRT STATIONS 



OPTION 1 : 

PRT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 



FIG. 7 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



I — L 



1200 



2400 



4800 FEET 




City Hospital. A maintenance facility and storage yard would be 
located in the MBTA South Boston yards. 

Depressed or cut-and-cover two-way segment in the median of an Inner 
Belt Arterial or Expressway from Massachusetts Avenue to the 
Relocated Orange Line at Ruggles Street, with an underground spur 
one-way loop to Dudley Station via Shawmut and Harrison Avenues. 

Cut-and-cover and shield-driven tunnel segment from the Relocated 
Orange Line to the Grand Junction right-of-way in Cambridge , with 
a one-way loop serving the Fenway Institutional area (under Huntington, 
Francis, Brookline Avenue and Fenway), and two-way beneath Park Drive 
and under the Mass. Turnpike, Boston University and the Charles River. 
Shield-driven technology to be used under parks and river, and under 
any sensitive areas or streets too narrow to be disrupted. 

At-grade segment along Grand Junction right-of-way with depressed 
station under Massachusetts Avenue and elevated segment crossing 
Main Street to terminus at Kendall Square; alternatively shield- 
driven and cut-and-cover tunnel alignments to either Central Square 
or Harvard Square. 



Option 2 . Bus or Light Rail in Exclusive Right-of-Way 

This option involves using existing rights-of-way and new arterial facilities 
already planned for other purposes, but no new major construction for the 
transit circumferential per se. Both bus and light rail suboptions are 
proposed, as both similarly can operate in non-grade -separated alignments, 
but require exclusive rights-of-way for unimpeded high-level service. The 
proposed alignment (see Figure 8) consists of the following segments: 

• Exclusive bus lanes on the Central Artery from South Station to 
Massachusetts Avenue, assuming the Third Harbor Tunnel construction 
relieves the Central Artery to allow special bus lanes; or surface 
and subway light rail alignment through the MBTA South Boston yards 
and behind City Hospital. 

• New major arterial with special purpose reservation in median in the 
Inner Belt right-of-way from Massachusetts Avenue to Ruggles Street. 

• Huntington Avenue, with joint use of the Green Line median for bus 
lanes or light rail, from Ruggles Street to Longwood Avenue. 

• Longwood Avenue, a two-lane street, as an exclusive bus-light rail- 
truck -ambulance street. 

• Brookline Avenue, exclusive lanes by removing parking, both sides, 
from Longwood Avenue to Kenmore Square. 



29 




*t>&'-" y /^EXCLUSfVE LANES 

■ ^*V'' / ONBROOKLINEAVE. 



I I 

i I 



BY REMOVING PARKING 



yf>' .oV 



UGSLES ST^*/ 



CENTHb^ ARTERY-/ / I 

/ / ! 



lONGWOOD AVE.^^ "*>*• 

-VwCT?i{KliL?ScE GREEN Life MEDIAK 
e^;™0 ^ ONHUHTlNGTONAVE 
FOR BUS LANES OR 
UGSTTRAIL 




J "■■ 

^ **-LIGHT RAJL 
,.*''/ ALIGNMENT 
■'^ THROUCS SOUTH 
BOSTOKlyARDS 



/^SPECIAL PURPOSE 
I RESERVATION IN 
i MEDfANOF 
i INNER BELT ROADWAY 




KEY 





— — EXCLUSIVE BUS 
RIGHT-OF-WAY 

..._,-. LIGHT RAIL SUBOPTION" 



OPTION 2: BUS/LIGHT RAIL IN /yR\ 

EXCLUSIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY CIRCUMFERENTIAL K N 

I — i_r~L 



FIG. 8 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



1200 2400 



4800 FEET 






Commonwealth Avenue, with joint use of the Green Line median for 
bus lanes or light rail, from Kenmore Square to the B.U. Bridge. 

Cambridge truck-bus or rail-route on Grand Junction right-of-way, 
including new bridge across the Charles River, to Keldall Square and 
beyond . 



Option 3. Rail Transit in Subway 

This option could be of either Light Rail or full Rapid Transit technology, 
but would be predominantly xmderground to minimize environmental and safety 
impacts. The map for this alignment is essentially the same as for the 
PRT Circumferential, apart from elimination of the one-way loops. The proposed 
alignment consists of: 

• Surface and s\ibway segment from South Station, via MBTA South Boston 
yards to Mass. Ave. behind City Hospital. 

• Depressed or cut-and-cover segment in the median of the Inner Belt 
Arterial or Expressway from Mass. Ave. to the Relocated Orange Line 
at Ruggles Street. 

• Cut-and-cover and shield-driven tunnel under Ruggles St. , Fenway, 
Park Drive, Boston University and Charles River to the Grand Junction 
right-of-way . 

• At-grade or cut-and-cover tunnel via Grand Junction right-of-way 
to Kendall Square, depending on technology; or tunnel alignments 
to either Central or Harvard Squares. 

The type of demand to be served in this corridor - primarily short-distance 
distribution trips from the radial intercepts - is particularly su itable to 
the PRT technology. This is capable of providing low headways and frequent 
station spacing, distributed in a dense network very close to destinations, 
yet offers rapid service from origin to destination because of its non-stop 
station-bypassing operation. Vehicles can be concentrated at heavy load seg- 
ments of the line at peak periods in response to the demand. PRT also has 
extreme routing flexibility that allows the ready addition of new alignments, 
appropriate to the possible extension and spurs discussed above. These cap- 
abilities are not characteristics of rapid transit technology; only a few are 
valid for light rail and to a lesser degree. They are generally possible 
with buses, but at a much lower level of speed and service. The automatic 
operation of PRT, and the smaller dimensions of the system, especially the 
required tunnel bore, mean that PRT offers both lower capital and operating 
costs than MBTA rail transit. 

In contrast to the PRT option, the other two have several distinct disadvantages. 
Option 2, bus or light rail in exclusive right-of-way, is lower in capital costs 



30 



^ y/ / ,'>ov 7>.?-^^^%:^^^' /-'?-<.^/7\.y)^.x/.^ 



■--—RAPID TRANSIT OR 
LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 



''#J>*fo 



''^'% 
%. 



SULLIVAN SO. 





CONNECTION EITHER TO ORANGE UNE 
\ AT SULLIVAN SQ. (FOR RAPID TRANSIT) 
OR GREEN LINE EXTENSION AT 
WASHjyNGJONST. (FOR LIGHT 







TWO SUBOPTIC^iS F^M WASHINGTON STi*/ 
TO CHARLES RIVER! W / 

-SUBWAY OR SURFACPa/IA GRAND JUNCtlON 
.-BIQttT-OF-WAY . l\ / 

- SHIEUBtJmyEN TU^WEl UNDER PROSPECT ST. 
AND MAGAZtVE OR ESfUiOfLMErSX. 

>v 



BOSTONUNiyErtSrmliU,^^ ! 




. .;»-6HtH,D DRIVENJ^WI^EL UNDER 

CT % ^-' CHARtES'fnVtRANIJPAB«eRtV€-^-' 



W PARK DRIVE 

, SROOiaiNE AVE. /» \ "^ 

BOSTON STATECOLLEGE ®,' 




>(^Ty<rtiTINGTOJ»^VE 




;wt«??^-'' 




SVNO SUBOPTIONS fWOM PARK DRIVE 
^ ^- . <^ TO DUDLEY: • 

•(S5-«^"^*®!!!Ii<a4«^ -TUNNEL UNDER FeIiWAY AND PARK DRIVE TO 
^ '*'"*sr'^^ INNER BELT RIGHTtOF-WAY, DEPRESSED OR 

.0^0^ CUT-AND-COVER IN MEDIAN TO TUNNELUNDER 

WASH.NGTO.^0* WASHINGTON ST. I 

■*==;: — r -TUNNEL UNDER BRpOKLINE AVE., LONGWOOD, 



DUDLEY STATION 



(f) MISSION HI LL HOUSING PRO J ECT AND NEW 

- ""^ DUDLEY ST. / 



I 

* (j)HAMPDEN ST. % 

WALKUt AVE.® jfi^i^^ ^"^^^^^^^^ 

5jfcJ»2^^'JSts. »v (f) W. COTTAGE ST. ' 

\l^n.t- J\^TWO SUBOPTIONS FROM DUOLEY TO GROVE HALL: 
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD. (f) >" CONTINUE TUNNEL UNDER^ARREN ST. 

i^ 1^- CONTINUE TUNNEL UNDER OUDLEY ST. AND 
t J BLUE HILL AVE. 

ELMHtLLAVE.® /t>U>NCYST. 

'1 /continue SOUTH WITH 

I// SAME SUBOPTIONS AS 

GROVEHALL#/ ALTERNATIVES B.1 AND 



OPTION 4: CIRCUMFERENTIAL/RADIAL 
RAIL TRANSIT [- 



FIG. 9 



CORE AREA 1200 




3600 



6000 FEET 



and offers routing flexibility, but would provide a slower, lower level of 
service than the other alternatives, not being grade -separated and totally 
segregated from other traffic. It is dependent for implementation on the 
construction of new vehicular facilities to provide a right-of-way, in 
particular the Inner Belt arterial and Cambridge truck route; and these 
facilities are far from certain to be approved. 

Option 3, rail transit in subway, has disadvantages of cost — the require- 
ment for tunnel for a greater length, the larger bore tunnel and generally 
greater capital costs. In addition, it has operating difficulties with 
close station-spacing, limited demand responsiveness, and limited branching 
capabilities. 

The following table compares some of the major characteristics of the 
technologies considered for the Transit Circumferential — bus, PRT, and 
rapid transit: 



BUS 



PRT 



RAPID TRANSIT 



Good performance char- 
acteristics to 12,000/ 
hour, with completely 
separate ROW and idsal 
station characteristics; 
3 , 000/hour in typical 
street running 



Peak capacity 8,000 - 
12, 000/hour; likely to 
increase with technologi- 
cal improvements 



Peak Capacity 20,000 
30, 000/hour 



Because no or low capital 
investment, applicable to 
low-medi\am volumes 



Smaller vehicles, there- 
fore can accommodate 
lower volume trip 
situations 

Smaller vehicles imply 
lower headways 



Good cost-effectiveness 
characteristics at 
veary high volumes 



Speeds of 8 - 12 mph 

on free-flowing arterial 

streets , including stops 



Speeds of 20 - 25 mph 
regardless of station- 
spacing 



Half-mile station-spacing 
minimum for 25 mph speed 



Station by-pass capability 
allows numerous stations 
without compromising 
travel speed 



Station by-pass 
capability allows 
numerous stations without 
compromising travel speeds 



Service can be increased 
to respond to demand 
volumes , up to street 
limitations 



Automation gives 
potential for total 
demand sensitivity 



Limited demand respon- 
siveness 



31 



BUS 



PRT 



RAPID TRANSIT 



Subject to street failiore; 
therefore reliability and 
image problem 

Driver always in vehicle 



Unknown reliability 



Passenger acceptance of 
automated vehicles 
unknown 



Proven good reliability 



Attendant generally on 
board 



Additional routes can 
be added at will 



Routing flexibility 
allows ready addition 
of new alignments; 
potential for area- 
wide network 



Limited branching cap- 
ability 



Can negotiate corners 



Can have low-medium 
radius of curvature 



Radius of curvature must 
be large 



Underground costs 
prohibitive 



Sufficient variety in 
size and design of 
capsule to allow all 
alternatives of verti- 
cal alignment 



Underground ROW required; 
25-foot diameter tunnel 



Low-capacity, low-speed 
service has minimal 
capital costs 



Tunneling costs 25 - 
50% of rapid transit 



High volumes require 
very costly station 
construction 



Cost range somewhat 
unknown; lower capital 
costs than rapid transit 



High capital costs 



High operating costs; 
lower in separate ROW 



Must be automated; 
therefore lower opera- 
ting costs than bus 



Lower operating costs 
than bus at high volumes; 
potential for automation 



Air and noise pollution 
impacts of internal 
combustion engine 



Electric propulsion and 
rubber-tired vehicles 
yield low air and 
noise pollution impacts 



Steel-wheel on steel- 
rail can be noisy on 
curves; low air 
pollution impact 



Elevated structure 
may have negative 
visual impacts 



32 



Option 4. Circumferential/Radial Rail Transit 

This option utilizes a rail transit approach to circumferential corridor move- 
ment, and joins it as a single facility with service in the Replacement Corridor 
south of Dudley Square to Mattapan. The design and analysis of this alternative 
have not been completed to the same level of detail as the other options. 

System elements in this option, as illustrated in Figure 9, include: 

• A Subway Rail transit facility in the circumferential corridor 
between Dudley Station, the Relocated Orange Line, Boston 
University, Cambridge, and Somerville, terminating either in a 
junction with the Orange Line North at Sullivan Square, or in a 

new transit radial along the New Hampshire Division B&M tracks through 
Somerville. 

• a radial extension of this facility from Dudley Station to 
Mattapan Square (see BTPR Southwest Report, transit options 
B.l and B.2, for detailed description of route alternatives 
in this radial corridor) . 

The concept of a joint circ\unferential-radial rail transit facility, as opposed 
to an independent circumferential transit facility, is based on several factors: 

• The facility would be directly integrated into the existing MBTA 
rail lines. It is not a new, incompatible technology; it does not 
require separate new yards and shops. The vehicles could operate 
directly onto existing Green or Orange Line tracks , depending on 
the technology chosen, both for non-transfer passenger service and 

for maintenance access, subject to scheduling and capacity constraints. 

• This facility would provide direct, high-speed, no-transfer service 
from the Southwest to the Northwest and offer an attractive 
alternative to the difficult automobile trips which now cause 
congestion and other impacts . 

• This concept attempts to respond to the incompatibility in services 
desired by the South End and by the Roxbury-North Dorechester-Mattapan 
residents of the Replacement Corridor. The former desire frequent 
station spacing and find a surface Green Line facility an appropriate 
solution; the latter wish to see full subway transit implemented. This 
option would permit the South End to have a surface facility that goes only 
from downtown to Dudley, while the Roxbury-Mattapan Corridor would have 

a subway tied into the circumferential, which must be in the subway 
in any case because of the dense configuration of the area. Though 
the circumferential segment requires close station spacing and the 
radial subway long spacing, the circumferential segment may be com- 
pared to the close-spaced downtown subway distribution area. 

• There is a desire line from the Roxbury-North Dorchester-Mattapan 
area, for medical and job purposes, to the Fenway institutions and 
to Cambridge , that this proposal would directly serve . The downtown 
demand would be served by transfer to the Relocated Orange Line. 

33 



The same sub-options exist from Mattapan Square to Dudley as are described in 
options B.l. and B.2. of the Southwest Report. These include: 

• From Mattapan Square to Grove Hall, either subway or surface via 
Blue Hill Avenue, or in the grade -separated Midlands Branch 
Railroad right-of-way. 

• From Grove Hall to Dudley Square, either subway or part surface - 
part subway via Warren Street, or subway via Blue Hill Avenue 
and Dudley Street. 

From Dudley to the Riverside Line two alignment alternatives exist: 

• Subway under New Dudley Street, intersecting the Relocated Orange 
Line at Roxbury Crossing, then under the Mission Hill Housing Project, 
Longwood Avenue, and Brookline Avenue to an intersection with the 
Riverside Line at Fenway Park Station. This alternative offers better 
service to the Campus High, Mission Hill community, and Medical Insti- 
tutional areas . 

• Subway under Warren-Washington Street to the Inner Belt right-of-way, 
depressed or cut-and-cover in the median to the Relocated Orange 
Line at Northeastern Station, then subway under Ruggles Street and 
the Fenway to the Riverside Line at Fenway Park. This alternative 
provides better service for the Inner Belt-Northeastern-Museum of 
Fine Arts area, and offers the option of an easier connection via 
the Northeastern yards to the Relocated Orange Line tracks for 
temporary maintenance access if required. 

The line continues as a shield-driven tunnel under Park Drive, Boston University 
and the Charles River to Cambridge. In Cambridge and Somerville, there are two 
basic options, with some specific street-alignment subvariants : 

• Subway or Surface (if Green Line technology) operation via the Grand 
Junction right-of-way to Kendall Square, East Cambridge, and the East 
Somerville B&M yards, connecting to either the Lechmere extension or 
the Orange Line North. 

• Shield-driven tunnel possibly under Brookline Street or Magazine Street 
to Central Square, then via Prospect Street to Inman and Union Squares 
and beneath Washington Street to a Green Line or Orange Line connection. 

One possible staging alternative of this option, in which the City of Boston 

and local community groups have expressed interest, focuses initial effort on the 

Replacement Corridor radial segment. This involves construction the segment 

from either Huntington Avenue or the Relocated Orange Line to Washington Street 

and Dudley Square , and continuing south possibly as far as Grove Hall as a first 

stage. This would operate as a branch of either the Huntington Avenue Green 

Line or the Relocated Orange Line. This alterantive has the advantage of assuring 

earlier service to this important part of the Replacement corridor , and of beinq 

able to be viewed as a staging approach either to the Circumferential/Radial 

or to one of the Replacement corridor radial options (B.l. or B.2. of the Southwest 

Report) by eventual connection from Dudley to Downtown via the South End. 

34 



I 



i 



PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT 



Studies of circumferential transit have concentrated on Pars^nal Rapid Transr.t 
(PRT) because of its promise as e useful technology for such a service and ^'hs 
need to develop a greater understanding of its true potential. PRT technology 
seems appropriate to serve the demand in this corridor and, ar. described in 
the preceding section, seems to have certain advantages over alternative tech- 
nologies, although a: number of questions remain for further study before a 
decision can be reached. This section summarizes the major efforts that have 
been completed concerning PRT technology and the proposed PRT transit circum- 
ferential. 



1. Technological Considerations 

a. General Characteristics . Personal Rapid Transit is a system of small 
automated vehicles running on private grade-separated guideways (for typical 
examples see Figure 10) . Within this general definition there is considerable 
variety possible, but certain characteristics are common to all or almost all 
of the different systems. They are automated in the sense that there are no 
operators in the vehicles, all routing, scheduling and operations being con- 
trolled by computer. Vehicle size varies from two to twenty passengers. They 
generally operate at very close headways — current state-of-the-art technology 
offering seven-second headways (in comparison to approximately sixty-second 
headways for full rapid transit) , with near-»ratare plans foi achieving one- 
second headways — thus achieving high-volume capacity despite the small 
vehicle size. Speeds range from twenty miles per hour to sixty. PRT systems 
have very good switching ability, at full line speed, and have off-line station 
configuration -- switching off the main trunk before decelerating and stopping, 
so as not to impede through vehicles that are by-passing that station (see 
Figure 11) . 

The vehicles are most commonly electrically-powered and run on rubber tires, 
although there are some major variants and exceptions, as described below. 
Some PRT systems are designed for dual-mode capacity, with the vehicles 
capable of both automated operation on the special guideways and driver-con- 
trolled operation on conventional roadways, similar to traditional vehicles. 
PRT can generally operate either under demand-responsive mode, with passengers 
pushing a button to choose their destination and proceeding there with no or 
few intervening stops, or under scheduled mode, following a pre-set pattern 
of some or all station-stops . 

These characteristics imply several advantages for PRT systems : 

• PRT permits frequent station-spacing, necessary for fine-grained 
distribution and for the frequent intersection of radial lines, 
but still provides rapid service from origin to destination, because 
of its off-line station - bypassing configuration. 



35 





DASHAVEYOR MONOCAB 

RUBBER-TIRED VEHICLE ON GUIDEWAY SUSPENDED VEHICLE 




FORD ACT 

RUBBER-TIRED VEHICLE ON GUIDEWAY 




TTI 



AIR-CUSHIONED SUPPORT, 
LINEAR INDUCTION MOTOR 



TYPICAL PRT SYSTEMS 

FIG. 10 



• PRT involves small vehicles and guideways , and therefore can be 
accommodated in more constricted rights-of-way, can fit into less- 
expensive smaller-bore tunnels, can be built into new building 
construction, and could be less offensive in elevated operation. 

• PRT can be constructed in tight configurations , with sharp curves 
and rapid changes in vertical elevation (in contrast to conventional 
modes) allowing it more readily to be fit into the densely built-up 
environment and to get directly to the various distribution service 
areas. 

• PRT offers the. flexibility of ready expansion to cover new service 
territories via construction of additional sub-loops and spurs 
switched into the main trunk, or even the possibility of operating 
off-guideway on local streets 

• PRT is relatively noise-free and pollution-free, being generally 
electrically-powered and rubber-tired. 

• PRT vehicles, being small and demand-responsive, offering direct 
origin-to-destination service, have/ the appeal of relatively 
private transportation, a factor in the competitive attraction 
vis-a-vis the private automobile. 

• The potential ridership voliomes required to economically justify 
a PRT facility are smaller than for a full rapid transit facility. 

• Due to its size and automatic operation, PRT is supposedly less 
expensive than other fixed transit technologies both to construct 
and to operate . 

There are today a considerable number of manufacturers offering PRT systems. 
These are in varying state of development, some having seen test-track operation — 
as the four shown at Transpo '72 at Dulles Airport, in Washington — while some 
are still untested conceptions. Two are soon to be in actual operation — the 

tLTV system for Dallas/Fort Worth Airport and the system for the University of 
West Virginia in Morgantown. These will be the first major operating examples, 
from which we can expect answers to many of the uncertaintxes concerning PRT, 
and which should produce considerable improvements for a successive generation 
of systems. 

b. Varieties of PRT Systems . For purposes of this first round of design and 
estimation, we have assumed a generalized PRT technology for an alternative to 
compare with other technologies. This considerably oversimplifies the choice 
available, for there are many s\ibcategories of PRT — both in type of system 



I 



36 



and in specific offerings of different manufacturers '-•- with differing char-^ 
acteristics and varying applicability to the needs of the transit circiim- 
ferential situation. Detailed consideration of transit solutions for this 
corridor must evaluate these subvariants , in comparison with each other and 
with conventional transit alternatives . 

One constraint we have placed on the range of systems under consideration 
is that the technology be essentially ready or nearly ready for operational 
use now. We do expect that improvements will be made with the implementation 
of operating examples in other cities, and any system likely to be applied in 
Boston's circiamferential corridor will represent a next generation of the 
technology. However, we feel it is not worthwhile investigating systems of 
far-future development of unknown likelihood — for this is a service situation 
in need of relatively near-term implementation. 

One category of technology often classed under the title Personal Rapid Transit 
that is not applicable to the transit circumferential needs is the continuous 
"people mover" system. This is generally a belt system that serves a pedestrian 
aid function, for short-haul trips at slow speeds (1.5 to 15 mph) . They are 
adequate within activity centers, for passenger rides generally under a mile 
in length and with very closely spaced stops (300 - 800 foot intervals) . However, 
the transit circumferential is meant to provide a range of service from a dis- 
tribution function to short line haul trips. Trip lengths are greater, required 
speed faster, and acceptable station-spacing longer than continuous belt systems 
provide . 

PRT systems may be subdivided into different types , with different physical and 
operational characteristics, according to three sets of parameters: (a) 
by size and. capacity, into Personal Size Values and Small Group Vehicles; 
(b) by operating mode, into Demand-Activated Mode and Scheduled Mode; (c) 
by support and propulsion technology, into Rubber-Tired- Vehicle-on-Guideway, 
Suspended-Vehicle, and Advanced-Support-and/or-Propulsion Systems: 

Personal Size Vehicles typically have a capacity of 2-6 seated passengers. 
The vehicles range from 4-1/2 to 6 feet wide, requiring a right-of-way 5 to 8 
feet wide. Since all passengers are generally seated, exterior heights are from 
4-1/2 to 6 feet. Vehicle lengths range from 5 to 10 feet, and gross weights 
from 1,500 to 4,000 pounds. The TTI. Monocab, Alden Starrcar, and Uniflo 
systems are typical of this category. 

With private occupancy typically averaging from one to two passengers for this 
category of system, present applications are somewhat limited to those with 
relatively low capacity requirements, due to vehicle headway constraints. This 
obviously implies operating in demand -activated mode, and offers the best com- 
petitive advantage with the private automobile. The capacity problem can in 
part be overcome by the capability of some of the systems to operate in trains. 



37 



in scheduled mode. However, it is fairly safe to assume that in the relatively 
near future close headway control will be sufficiently perfected to permit high 
capacity operation of individual vehicles'. 

Certain Personal Size Vehicle schemes also include dual mode collection- 
distribution capability — the vehicle being a private road vehicle similar 
in function to conventional automobiles. However, such a dual-mode personal 
vehicle concept still needs some development, and it may be that the modif- 
cation of the expressway system into an automated guideway network holds the 
most promise for such operation. 

This type, with its small vehicles and relatively small guideway structure, 
should require less space intrusion and have less negative environmental impact 
in elevated alignment. However, this depends on individual characteristics of 
each system and each particular locational situation. 

Small Group Vehicles typically carry from 8-20 passengers seated, plu? , 
in most cases, peak load standing capacity approximately equal to the seated 
capacity. The vehicles are 7 to 8 feet wide, requiring a right-of-way 8 to 11 
feet wide per lane. They have stand-up interior height and so range from 
7-1/2 to 10 feet in height. Vehicle lengths range from 16 to 30 feet, and 
gross weights from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds. Typical examples in this cate- 
gory include the LTV Dallas/Fort Worth, Morgantown, Ford ACT, and Dasheveyor 
systems. 

Because of the group occupancy, very close headway control is not required to 
achieve quite large capacities; therefore this type of PRT system is likely 
to be implemented sooner. The large capacity of the indivdidual vehicles 
in this type of system implies scheduled mode of operation at least at peak 
hours, with demand-activated mode possible at off-peak hours. 

Dual -mode bus capability for these systems will still require some development. 
The majority of the existing system examples of this category use conventional 
rubber-tire suspension. Additional system costs for dual -mode operation include: 
guideway entrance checking systems , additional vehicle cost compared to guide- 
way-captive vehicles for such items as manual steering capability and control 
systems, higher labor costs with drivers on vehicles when on guideway, and 
less controlled operation in of f -guideway portions . 

The impact of such a larger-vehicle and larger guideway system on the environ- 
ment, if in elevated configuration, would obviously be greater than for the 
personal type; and this might require operation only in surface, depressed, or 
subway alignment. 

Demand-Activated Mode implies operation with vehicle destination determined fully 
by request of passenger. This means direct origin-to-destination service, 
with no or few intervening stops . 

This mode of operation is technologically applicable to most types of systems 
by control-system modification. To date the technology has not been applied 
to produce full flexibility, because current attempts (as at Morgantown) have 



38 



had to cut back the anticipated sophistication of control systems because of '\ 

cost constraints. This mode accommodates better to Personal Size Vehicle I 

systems, where one or few riders per vehicle will choose a limited number of i 

destinations. It is also practicable for the smaller range of Small Group ! 

Vehicles at off-peak hours, at times of low ridership per vehicle. j 

Scheduled Mode implies operation with pre-programmed patterns of stops. This 

does not necessarily mean vehicles stopping at every station, as with conventional 

rapid transit. Various skip-stop patterns can be programmed to respond to , 

known desire lines and can be operated simultaneously to cover all the possible | 

demand combinations. With heavy demand and relatively full vehicles, it ! 

may be possible to have direct origin-destination seirvice. i 

I 
I 

This mode of operation works well with the Small Group Vehicle systems, where 

the larger vehicle can accommodate passengers destined for the number of stops 

on the particular pre-scheduled pattern. System capacity would generally be [ 

greater with this mode of operation; thus it might be used during peak hours, 

in combination with off-peak Demand-Activated operation. For Personal Size 

Vehicle systems. Scheduled Mode is not generally appropriate. I 

Rubber-Tired Vehicle on Guideway Systems are the most common systems currently 
available. They generally depend on very conventional equipment, with traditional i 
bus or truck suspension, high performance pneumatic or solid rubber tires, | 

and concrete or metal running surface. Propulsion is generally via conventional I 
electric motor, with power supply through the guideway. These are essentially 
automated electric automobile or bus systems. They can operate in elevated, i 

at grade or \inderground guideways. Many systems exist both in the Personal- ] 

Size-Vehicles and Small-Group-Vehicle categories. Typical examples include 
the Ford ACT, Morgantown, LTV Dallas/Fort Worth, and Alden Starrcar systems. 

As these systems employ much conventional equipment, they are among the most 
readily available and proven systems, with less need for debugging and improve- 
ments through operational demonstrations. This factor should also hold their 
cost down, for they can use off-the-shelf, mass-produced components. 

Another major advantage of this type of system is its convertibility to Dual- 
Mode Operation. With the addition of a manual control mechnaism and on -vehicle 
power source, the vehicles could run on existing street networks. Conversely, 
and with implications of great mass-production savings, conventional road 
vehicles could in the futture be adapted to such automated guideway operation. 

The size and capacity of such vehicles spans the range of conventional auto- ! 
mobiles and buses. The guideway is comparable in apparent massiveness to a 
narrow roadway structiore (though load requirements are lighter and structural 

design could easily be more graceful than typical American highway design) . . 

Thus aesthetic impact problems can be expected in some areas from elevated systems. j 

i 

Suspended Vehicle Systems , similar in concept to monorail systems , are also j 

well-represented in current offerings. They generally run on rubber tires, I 



39 



suspended from an I-beam or U-channel guideway, and are powered by conventional 
electric motors. Though they could run below grade, these are generally envisaged 
as elevated systems. Examples exist both' in Personal-Size-Vehicle and Small- 
Group-Vehicles categories, including Monocab, Jetrail, and Messerschmitt-Bolkow- 
Blohm. 

A major disadvantage of these systems, in contrast to the Rubber-Tired-Vehicle- 
on-Guideway systems, is their inability to adapt to dual-mode operation. They 
also have a potential safety problem in means of emergency egress for passengers. 
The suspension structure is generally very light, and high overhead, and there- 
fore likely to be more environmentally acceptable than vehicle-supported-on- 
guideway systems. 

Advanced Support and/or Propulsion Systems employ a variety of special techno- 
logies, including: 

Uniflow vehicles, which are levitated and propelled by air from a duct under- 
neath the running surface. The vehicles, seating four or eight passengers, 
are totally passive, with all operating systems found in the enclosed tube 
guideway through which the vehicles move. Because of the massiveness of the 
tube guideway and the noise potential of the air system, this approach may 
have major problems of environmental impact in elevated operation. 

TTI System, with a vehicle supported on air-cushion pads and propelled by a 
linear induction motor. The system offers either 5-seat or 16-seat vehicles. 
The guideway has similar problems of possible aesthetic intrusion as the 
guideways supporting rubber-tired vehicles. Also the air cushion equipment 
may have excessive noise impact. 

These systems have the disadvantage of not being adaptable to dual -mode off- 
guideway operation. The techological innovations imply great uncertainty on 
questions of operational reliability, system capacity and cost. Further demon- 
stration and development is needed. 

c. Questions and Problems for Further Investigation . PRT technology still 
has several unresolved questions associated with it, which need further study. 
Among the most outstanding are : 

Personal Security . 

Because of the automated nature of PRT, passengers will be riding in vehicles 
and waiting at stations with no operator or station attendant present — people 
who, by their presence, traditionally perform a secondary function of protecting 
the patrons from physical attack, muggings, thefts, etc. What sorts of mechanical 
controls can be substituted to assure the safety of the patrons? This is a 
particularly important consideration where the PRT system runs through some 
of the less safe districts of the city. Detailed study is necessary of the 
operation and effectiveness of various proposed solutions (including video 
and audio controls, and vehicle routing control) . 



40 



Cost and Reliability . 

A detailed analysis is needed of the costs, both construction and operating, 
and the service reliability of the various available systems. This must 
examine the operating capabilities of actual as opposed to simulated performance, 
under real conditions of heavy passenger usage, inclement weather, breakdwon 
and maintenance situations. As with any newly developed technology, many 
unknowns concerning costs and operating capabilities remain until a system is 
in full operation. The sky-rocketing costs and resultant service cutbacks 
of systems presently in construction are proof of this problem. 

Passenger Acceptance . 

Little is known about th ^ public reaction to and inclination to use such a new 
technology, with its unaccustomed characteristics, automation and lack of 
attendants. This could cause ridership levels to be considerably different 
from model projections based solely on travel time and costs. This can 
only be known through real operating experience. 

Environmental Impacts . 

This is perhaps the most dubious aspect of the PRT systems , and the one 
that raises most antagonistic reaction from the public — what such a guideway 
and vehicles will be like, running elevated or at grade through built-up 
areas. Questions are frequently heard of visual barrier effect, shadowing, 
aesthetic acceptability, noise pollution, and general blighting impact for 
those adjacent to or under the PRT structure. This will require considerable 
study, involving tests, renderings, models and photo-montage to determine and 
illustrate the impact of the structure and operation of the system in the pro- 
posed context. 



41 



2. E ngineering and Costing Analysis 

A preliminary engineering design study and cost estimate has been completed 
for the basic PRT Transit Circumferential Option from South Station to Kendall 
Square. For this purpose, generalized PRT dimensions and characteristics were 
assumed, illustrated in the typical sections in Figures 11, which are 
typical of many of the available systems, and which accommodate the twenty 
passenger vehicles which have been postulated as a result of the ridership 
demand calculations. These are approximate, and for further detailed esti- 
mates, costing should be based on particular manufacturers' systems and 
specifications, to achieve greater accuracy. As illustrated in the typical 
PRT sections, guideways for a rubber-tired-vehicle system have been assumed, 
as this is the most common type. 

The adaptability of the PRT to existing t.pographlc and other physical and 
environmental conditions is the most important factor for the relatively low 
consul-fiction cost, in contrast with other transit facilities. Cost estimates 
have been devd-^pr-^ :or typical sections and stations in elevated, at -grade, 
depressed, cut-and-cover, and shield -driven tunnel configurations, and are 
siammarized in Figure 12. The prime purpose of these estimates is to show the 
realtive cost relationship between alternatives. It is emphasized that the 
estimates are preliminary and not general in nature; they do not fit all PRT 
systems, but are related to the particular typical sections used for this 
analysis. 

In order to remove snow and prevent ice from building up on the guideway, 
an electrical heating system was included in the estimate of the depressed 
sections. This system was found un:iecessary for the on-grade and elevated 
sections , based on the assumption that a mechanical snow remover attached to 
each vehicle, or on a special vehicle, is realistically feasible. 

The comparable cost of the cut-and-cover and depressed sections indicates 
that the heating system, metal bridge railing, drainage and pumping stations 
of the depressed sections approximately equal in cost the structural deck, 
ventilation and temporary cover of the cut-and-cover sections. Based on this 
finding, it appears that for both aesthetic and economic reasons, wherever 
structural requirements permit, a light cover of less than $10/sq. ft. may 
justify the elimination of a depressed section. 

Since a favorable soil condition exists for tunneling along the PRT alignment 
from Ruggles Street north, the cost of a txinnel section was investigated. The 
cost estimate presented assumes that the soil is consistently soft and that the 
average depth to the bottom of the tunnel will not exceed 40-50 feet. 

Tiie narirow width of the PRT system certainly is a positive factor to the cost 
of t\inneling. The 20-foot diameter section used for two-way and the 13-foot 
diameter used for the one-way system appear to be the minimum acceptable limits. 

The cost estimate for a PRT system from South Station to Kendall Square, 
summarized in Figure 13, includes the construction cost (civil and electrical). 



42 



4. Institutional and Funding Questions 

The issues raised in this section are meant primarily to indicate questions for 
further detailed investigation. Discussion of the issues and possible answers 
to questions are given on some points; but in general, the work on these 
topics has been of the most preliminary nature only. 

a. Institutional Structure . This topic centers on the question of what agency 
should operate a circumferential transit facility, particularly a PRT facility 
— the MBTA or some other operator. The alternatives to the MBTA (or a reor- 
ganized regional transit agency) might include a new or existing autonomous or 
semi -autonomous public authority, a state agency, a private operator, or the 
manufacturer/construction . 

The reasons one might consider another operator other than the MBTA are partic- 
ularly evident with PRT technology. Would MBTA operation put constraints in 
terms of labor and operating practices that would not permit full utilization 
of the advantages of PRT technology? Would the MBTA be willing to get involved 
in the operation of such a new technology? With conventional technology it 
can reasonably be assumed that the MBTA would be the operator , for then the 
only major problem is that of the priorities of the MBTA for constructing such 
a major capital project, given the other facilities already in its capital 
plan. 

Under present law, the MBTA has the "exclusive" authority to operate mass 
transportation systems in this area, and this certainly includes circumferential 
transit, whether conventional or PRT. For any other operator to be considered, it 
would require either new legislation, or MBTA concurrence and licensing. It 
is within MBTA's mandate to contract out the operation of transit lines to 
private operators. A new public operator would require chartering by a 
special legislative statute, which can override the current MBTA legislation. 
In this case, the potential conflicts are less legal than political. Various 
factors may influence the outcome of this legislative process. These include 
the proper interests of MBTA as now constituted, the interests of travel 
unions bargaining with the MBTA, and the evolving interests of the Authority 
as it experiences new inputs and develops new structures in light of the 
response of the legislature to its Recess Commission examination of the MBTA. 

Several other issues arise concerning an MBTA v. non MBTA -operated circiomferential. 
How would an independently-operated system be integrated into the existing 
system — in the construction of intersections, in the arrangement of transfers? 
If the MBTA operated the circumferential, it would have open the option of 
constructing direct transfers, for free or with additional fares — though 
this would have to be accommodated to the system-wide operating finances 
pattern. This would involve questions of MBTA assessment equity, whether 
the Circumferential is seen as a local or an express service and what formula 
is to be used, and how costs are to be allocated — all in relation to the 
novelty and special character of this service. 

For another operator, the organization of direct transfers and the integration 
with the overall transit system would be more difficult, perhaps raising problems 
with the MBTA financing structure. A less complete integration of the facility 
might defeat many of the advantages of the circumferential, which are primarily 
in its system improvements. The financial realities and resultant fare levels 
for a circumferential might be different for the MBTA and for the various other 
possible operators. 

43 



OFF-LINE GUIDEWAY FOR STATION ACCESS 
THROUGH GUIDEWAY CONTINUES UNDER STATION. - 




ISO' ^ 150' ^100' x| 15 0'. >j, 150' N- 



\- 



ma 



^K 



TYPICAL TWO-WAY DEPRESSED STATION PLAN 
(CONDITION AT RUGGLES ST. AND DUDLEY STATIONS) 




TYPICAL TWO-WAY DEPRESSED STATION SECTION 




TYPICAL TWO-WAY SHIELD-DRIVEN TUNNEL SECTION (CONDITION 
UNDER PARK DRIVE, BOSTON UNIVERSITY AND CHARLES 
RIVER.) 

TYPICAL PRT SECTIONS 



FIG. 11. 



Many of these questions may prove academic, depending on the outcome of the 
Recess Commission work and its proposals. A reorganization of the regional transit 
authority might make direct operation by the transit authority more appealing than 
by the MBTA as presently structiored. Or the authority may be divided in such 
a way as to make independent operation the reasonable approach, compatible with 
other transit operations. Simply implementing changes in the MBTA financial 
structure could affect institutional considerations concerning the circumferential. 

A related issue to that of the operating authority is the question of who should 
construct such a system. It could be done directly by the operating authority. 
It could be done by a manufacturer on a turnkey approach, suggested as 
appropriate for such a new technology. Depending on the source of funding, 
it might be conceivable for the DPW to be involved in the construction, instead 
of the MBTA or other operator. The answer to this may or may not depend on 
the decisions concerning operating authority, 

b. Labor Problems . There are basic questions concerning the acceptability to 
the labor unions of an automated, driverless technology like PRT. Automation 
of a new service, such as the circumferential, represents both an immediate 
threat, in terms of jobs replaced by automation that would have existed on a 
new conventional service (or actually lost on old services replaced or made 
obsolete by the new) , and a potential threat, in terms of the initiation of a 
trend toward automation that could eventually replace workers on the existing 
system. If the unions do not accept the new technology, because of these fears, 
they can probably successfully prevent its implementation, by influencing on- 
going collective bargaining and by experiencing influence in the legislature. 
Any attempt at instituting a PRT system would have to deal with both the 
problems. ( 

Concerning the operation of the PRT Circumferential itself, jurisdictional and I 

work rules questions will have to be ironed out as to where this new technology j 

fits into the existing pattern, or whether it is outside the structure and does j 

not need to comply. It seems clear that the much-discussed "guard law," j 

requiring that passenger trains of more than one car have on them one "guard" 
(or "employee having similar duties") for every two cars, would not apply 
to the circiimferential involving only single -vehicle operation. Also, a 
significant plus for the circumferential is that it will stimulate additional 
jobs in the other parts of the system. The demand projections show considerable 
induced ridership for the entire system from institution of a circumferential. 
This increased ridership will mean increased service and more jobs on the existing 
lines, in addition to the jobs to operate the automated system itself. If it 
can be shown that overall, the institution of a PRT circumferential represents an 
increase in system-wide employment, the unions may be convinced to accept the 
automated concept. Details would need to be worked out, and guarantees given 
against future job reductions from possible extension of automation in the 
system, but it can concevably be accommodated to the complexities of the 
transit labor situation. 

If the PRT system were to be run by another operator than the MBTA, it is 
questionable whether there would be any easier labor situation than with the MBTA. 
The transfer to another operation may be viewed by the unions as an attempt 
to circumvent existing transit work rules, and they would use their influence 
to place constraints on the new operator, similar to those the MBTA would face. 
Presumably, if a conventional circumferential were implemented, the labor 
situation would be no different from that for the entire transit system. 



44 



c. Funding Possibilities . There are significant contrasts in the possibilities 
and constraints of potential financing for conventional rail and for riobber- 
tired Transit Circiimferential solutions. 

If a conventional rail option is chosen, the only funding alternative is the 
standard MBTA capital grants approach, which involves one-third local share 
and two-thirds from UMTA, given the constraints of UMTA's limited resources. 
Even more constraining, such a project would have to complete for priority with 
other major capital transit projects in the region for the limited resources 
in bond issues approved by the State Legislature, This would place the circum- 
ferential in competition with such projects as the Relocated Orange Line, 
Harvard-Alfewife Red Line extension, and Replacement Corridor service. Some of 
these improvements have been in the MBTA Masterplan for quite a long time , and 
have strong constituences behind them, and it is doubtful whether the 
circumferential could conceivably be funded before they are substantially 
completed, no matter how strong the demand and the benefits demonstrated for it. 
Thus, implementation of the circiomferential would likely be pushed back until 
1985 at the earliest. 

One factor, however, that might give additional weight to the circumferential is 
the indication, in UMTA's 1972 Capital Grants guidelines, that one priority for 
federal funding of transit is for projects that will increase the mode split, 
and use transit in innovative ways. The expressed UMTA goals are to increase 
transit use relative to automobiles, to provide greater mobility to groups 
dependent on public transportation, and to implement an overall transit-oriented 
strategy. It can be argued that a circumferential facility would be more 
effective at implementing all these goals than the capital-intensive radial 
extensions, and thus would have a higher priority from an UMTA viewpoint. This 
argument is applicable to whatever technology is chosen for the circiomf erential . 

All the issues concerning the capital grants approach are, however, affected by 
the uncertain policy changes and trends in federal and state transit funding, 
which suggest that available monies should increase considerably in coming 
years , and also by the many uncertainties concerning the future MBTA financial 
structure . 

The only bus circumferential option being considered, the bus in exclusive right- 
of-way, depends on construction of several arterial street improvements for 
its implementation. The bus right-of-way can certainly take advantage of FHWA 
funding under various programs, depending on the decision on and fionding of the 
arterial program, and thus utilize a more abundent source of money than strictly 
transit resources. However, funding the purchase of vehicles does depend on 
standard capital grants applications . 

A PRT option opens up several alternative funding sources. Besides the standard 
MBTA capital grants approach, these include a possible UMTA demonstration grant 
and possible use of highway funds. 

UMTA has indicated an interest in funding a downtown demonstration project of PRT 
technology in an older Eastern city. This is in addition to the recently 
announced PRT demonstration project in Denver, a city of different scale and 
density, and with no existing fixed transit system. We believe the PRT circum- 
ferential would comply with UMTA;s requirements for such a demonstration system 
and a segment of it would be a candidate for the grant. 



45 



Such demonstration funds are granted on the basis of 100% Federal participation. 
There is no definite indication of how much of a grant UMTA is considering, but 
the Denver example suggests a relatively small amount (in Denver, the figure 
was $11 million) , which covers the cost of only a small segment of the system. 
Beyond this , UMTA would expect continuation of the program on the basis of 
standard capital grants, with one-third local share. Thus, it is likely that 
a demonstration grant would pay for only a small part of what we have considered 
the first stage of a PRT circumferential. 

The question of the possible use of highway funds for constructing PRT systems 
is a matter for legal argioment, but it is the opinion of the BTPR that it is 
possible with existing legislation. This is based on interpretation of 23 
U.S.C. §142 and FHWA PPM 50-10 (January 17, 1972), which authorizes the use of 
Federal highway funds for "Urban highway public transportation". 

The basic purpose of §142 is : 

"To encourage the development, improvement, and use of public mass 
transportation systems operating motor vehicles on highways, other 
than on rails , for the transportation of passengers (hereinafter in 
this section referred to as "buses") within urbanized areas so as to 
increase the traffic capacity of the Federal-aid systems." (Emphasis added.) 

The issue is whether PRT vehicles fit the description "motor vehicles,,, (re- 
ferred to as 'buses')", and the PRT guideway is included in the description "on 
highways, other than on rails", Ass\iming that the "motor vehicles" under 
consideration are rubber-tired, have electric motors, and require no drivers, 
and that the "highway" is a guideway not involving steel rails that accommodates 
only the above-described vehicles (a description which includes many but not 
all, PRT systems), it is our opinion that the assumed guideway could be determined 
to be a "highway" within the meaning of §142, since it does not include the use 
of steel rails. 

With respect to the term "motor vehicles", it is also our opinion that the as" 
sximed vehicles could be determined to fall within the meaning of §142. A 
stronger case could be presented if the vehicles contained an on-board source 
of power, but this does not seem to be essential. Similarly, if some or 
highways, they would appear more like normal highway vehicles; although 
again, this does not seem to be essential. 

FHWA PPM 50-10 does place certain constraints on exclusive bus lanes, suggesting 

that, unless the provisions are waived, the DPW would have to retain some measure 

of control over the guideway and would be responsible for maintenance , in order 

for the system to be eligible for highway funding. Federal-aid highway funds 

can be used for eligible "busway" projects in cases where implementation of a 

busway project will avoid or reduce the size of a proposed general purpose 

highway project. Where a busway avoids a normal highway project, the total 

amount of the Federal share of the avoided project. Alternatively, where the busway 

avoids construction of a highway project which is not "feasible and prudent" 

(presumably in the Overton Park sense) , there is no limitation on the total 

amount of Federal funds which can be used. As appropriate, either Urban, Interstate, 

TOPICS, or Urban System funds may be provided for busway projects, with their 

respective federal/local funding percentages. 



46 



To the extent that the circiomferential people mover avoids concentration of the 
Inner Belt, Interstate funds could be used (assuming, of course, that the 
designated Inner Belt funds and mileage have not been transferred elsewhere) . 
Furthermore, if the Inner Belt is determined not to be "feasible and prudent", 
there would be no limitation on the total amount of available Federal funds. 

As concerns the state share toward such a guideway as highway, there may be 
problems in the use of State Highway Fund monies under present provisions. If 
so, the local share could be financed either by a special legislative appropri- 
ation from the General Fund to the DPW, or by a General Fund appropriation to 
the MBTA, with a working agreement between MBTA and DPW. 

It should be remembered that the above reasoning represents a preliminary, 
untested legal argument, which admittedly stretches the busway program to its 
limits. The FHWA has expressed reluctance to apply these arguments without 
additional direction from the Congress. But the fact that it is a new 
and untried program may be an advantage , and the proposal may be seen as an 
attractive "semi -demonstration" project by the Department of Transportation. 

Considering the difficulties encountered in Congress by transportation legislation 
in 1972 on the issues of funding for mass transportation, it is hard to predict 
what near-future developments will be on this subject. The most radical plans 
would open up highway fund money to a broad range of public transportation projects, 
and would make the detailed arguments presented here on the applicability of PRT 
funding irrelevant. However, passage of such extreme proposals seems unlikely. 
Quite possibly the direction Congress will move in the next session will be to 
open highway funds more clearly to rubber-tired public transportation, and thus 
resolve the remaining questions concerning the availability of funds for PRT 
technology. 



47 



Figure 12 
COST ESTIMATES FOR TYPICAL PRT CONFIGURATIONS 
Section Cost 



Elevated - one-way guideway 
two-way guideway 



per lineal foot per station 



$636 



$870 
one-way station $1,290,000 

two-way station $2,000,000 

At-grade-two-way guideway $310 

two-way station $ 750,000 

Depressed - one-way guideway $1,260 

two-way guideway $1,850 

two-way station $3,060,000 

Cut-and-Cover - one-way guideway $1,280 

two-way guideway $2,130 

one-way station $2,260,000 

two-way station $3,210,000 

Tunnel - one-way guideway $1,900 

two-way guideway $2,635 

one-way station $2,995,000 

two-way station $5,790,000 



48 



Figure 13 
PRT TRANSIT CIRCUMFERENTIAL COST ESTIMATE — SOUTH STATION TO KENDALL SQUARE 



A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 

H 

I 
J 
K 

L 
M 
N 

P 

Q 

R 
S 

T 

U 

V 

W 

X 

Y 

Z 

AA 

BB 



Station 
South Station 

Broadway 
Maintenance depot 

City Hospital 



Washington St. 
Dudley Square 

Ruggles St. (Orange Line Reloc. 
Boston State College 
Brigham Circle 
Brook line Ave. 

Park Drive 
Boston University 
Cambridgeport 
Massachusetts Ave. 
Kendall Square 



Section 



Construction Cost 



Elevated one-way 

Elevated two-way 

Elevated two-way 

At -grade 

Elevated and At-grade two-way 

At -Grade two-way 

At-Grade two-way (in depressed 

roadway median) 
Depressed two-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way 
At-Grade two-way (in depressed 

roadway median) 
Depressed two-way 
Cut-and-cover two-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way 
Cut-and-cover and tunnel, one-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way 
Cut-and-cover one-way and 

tunnel two-way 
Tunnel two-way 
Tunnel two-way 
Tunnel two-way 
Tunnel two-way 
At-grade two-way 
At-grade two-way 
Depressed two-way 
At-grade and elevated, two-way 
Elevated one-way 

Total 

Contingencies 

Engineering and Construction 
Supervision 



$1,970,000 
2,170,000 
2,000,000 
3,000,000 
2,895,000 
725,000 

750,000 
3,145,000 
2,590,000 
2,940,000 

1,000,000 
3,125,000 
3,110,000 
2,470,000 
1,890,000 
2,020,000 
7,600,000 
2,295,000 

3,124,000 
5,790,000 
2,625,000 
5,790,000 
5,197,000 
725,000 
650,000 
3,015,000 
1,445,000 
1,220,000 

$75,336,000 

15,073,000 

9,044,000 



Service Oriented Costs 

Central Management and Station Control 

Power Control 

100 Vehicles @ $30,000 



Total Estimated Construction Cost$99,483,000 

$16,000,000 
2,000,000 
3,000,000 



Total Service Oriented Cost 
Total Estimated System Cost 



$21,000,000 
$120,000,000 



49 



plus 20$ for contingencies and 10% for engineering work, and is based on the 
structural requirements for a twenty-person vehicle . Added to this is the 
service-oriented expenditure for vehicles and control system, which is very 
approximate, depending on nxomber of vehicles and complexity of control mechanisms 
with the particular system finally chosen. The segments indicated in the cost 
estimate are keyed to Figure 15. 

In contrast to the Total Estimated Construction Cost for the PRT Circumferential 
of $99.5 million, the comparable cost for the full rapid transit circumferential/ 
radial line from Sullivan Square to Mattapan Square was estimated at $433.2 
million. Of this, the cost of the circimferential segment of this rapid transit 
line, from Sullivan Square, via Inman Square, Central Square and the Fenway, 
to Dudley Square, is $309.1 million. This assumes primarily shield-driven 
tunnel construction, due to the narrow width of streets under which the pro- 
posed subway would pass and because of the complicated nature of underground 
utilities. Stations would be constructed by cut-and-cover operation, and 
some parts would utilize existing grade-separated rail rights-of-way. 



» 



50 



3. Staging Possibilities 

Funding constraints suggest the possible necessity of staged construction of 
any transit system improvement, particularly when considered as part of the 
overall transit system funding priorities . The focus of the BTPR on the part 
of the transit circiimferential from South Station via the Dudley-Fenway area 
to the Red Line in Cambridge, rather than the completion of the loop or other 
possible spurs and extension, implies a staging priority in itself. This 
is the area of the greatest and most immediate demand, within the context 
of the overall expanded core area; it also offers the greatest system-wide 
benefits , in terms of improved distribution and relief of the congested 
central subway system. 

Within this Transit Circumferential proposed by the BTPR, particularly for 

the PRT Option, the segment which is recommended for first implementation is 

that running from Broadway Station (South Boston) to Commonwealth Avenue 

(Boston University) . This could be constructed and operated as a complete 

line in itself, providing a major transit service benefit and fully demonstrating 

the advantages of a circumferential system. (See staging indication in Figure 15) . 

As described in section B.l, Service Area Definition and Description, the 
sector of heaviest transit service need in the corridor is the Kenmore -Fenway 
area, from the Charles River to the Relocated Orange Line. This is the area 
of the heaviest institutional concentrations ■ — with Boston University, the 
Harvard Medical Area, and the Fenway Group of institutions, including North- 
eastern University — as well as the Kenmore Square retail area and the dense 
residential and light industrial neighborhoods. A facility in this area 
would intersect and provide distribution for all four of the Green Lines 
and the Relocated Orange Line. 

The completion of this first segment to Broadway provides intersection and 
distribution for the Red Line south, the heaviest travelled transit radial - 
a most important interconnection for the functioning of a circumferential 
facility. It also would serve the Dudley Square area, and the proposed 
Replacement Transit Service in the important Washington -Warren -Blue Hill 
Ave . corridor . 

For the PRT Circumferential it is essential that the first segment extend to 
Broadway, for this gives it access to the MBTA South Boston yards, which is 
the only available location in the corridor for storage and maintenance 
facilities for the PRT vehicles. Access to these yards is also valuable 
for all other technologies, as it is the most convenient servicing and storage 
location, although connection to others is not impossible. 

Particularly for a new technology like the PRT, it is important that the first 
segment implemented be of sufficient size to demonstrate to the user public 
the capabilities of the system. Some of the major benefits of PRT technology 
are the ability for the rider to select his destination and to by-pass inter- 
vening stops, the unusually good switching capability, and the rapid speed 



51 ! 




-4?b. 




r 
f 

M 

' ALTERNATIVE 
IGNMENTS 
_ CENTR ■ 
OR HARVA 
SQUARE 




^*. NAnu.B^ >» KENDALL SQUARE-TEMPORABYTERMINUS- .\ 

^"•»£/*RDREDLiNc «7t\ to be constructed as part of CRA %» 

"•"^Hmrl^ I'X' KEfJDALL SQUARE RENEWAL (-LAW *« 

m /AA BB "i;- .td y<^ / i 

VARD jfRMASS.AVE./MIT ^^ "^V S/ .' 



,5^Y 



JT)mASS. AVE./MIT 

/ z 

: — AT-GRADE ALIGNMENT 

ONGR ~ 

RAILR 






Jl/ CAMBRIDGEPORT/MIT-WEST 

i ' 

w 



"•"».», 



; BOSTON UNIVERSITY 



VSHIELD-.BRfi'EN TUNN^b^ 



..aS^?-'' 





ONE-WAY LOOP IN 
CUT-AND-COVER AND 
SHIELD-DRIVEN TUNNEL 
In FENWAY 
INSTITUTIONAL AREA 






) WASHINGTON ST. 



|TdU[ 



M BOSTON CITY HOSPITAL/ 
f Rl). MEDICAL CENTER 



roUDLEY STATION 



I 

i 
i 



KEY 




I 
I 
f 



(D 



PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT 
PRT STATIONS 



OPTION 1 : 

PRT CIRCUMFERENTIAL 



FIG. 14 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



I — L 



1200 2400 



4800 FEET 




from origin to destination because of the bypass capacity. To adequately 

demonstrate these advantages, the system must be large enough with suffi- ■ 

cient number of stations, to provide the choice option and reap the benefit 

of the speed. For any technology, the system must go to enough destinations 

to demonstrate to the public the benefits of improved distribution and the 

possibilities of circumferential movement. The proposed segment from Common- i 

wealth to Broadway is sizable enough to function as an entity in itself and 

demonstrate these advantages, and to justify the complex technology that 

is being proposed for implementation. ' 

A second stage of implementation, as concerns PRT, would be completion of the 

seirvice within the corridor defined by the BTPR, by extension from Commonwealth 

Avenue to a Red Line intersection in Cambridge, to pick up this heavily travelled ] 

radial, and from Broadway to the South Station Transportation Terminal. Later 

stages can complete the loop via East Somerville and North Station, and extend 

other branches and s\ibloops , as further investigation indicates a demand. This 

can be a gradual process of growth toward an improved expanded regional core 

distribution system serving all major destinations. However, all such successive 

stages depend on the effectiveness of the first demonstration segment. 

The proposed first segment, from Broadway to Commonwealth Avenue, has a total es- 
timated system cost of $92 million, out of the total for the total for the South 
Station to Cambridge Red Line segment of $120 million. This represents a very 
large first increment, but is necessitated ty the length of segment required for 
an adequate demonstration, and by the fact that the major portion of the power 
and control system costs for the eventual system must be included to operate 
the initial stage. The costs of this first segment, or a part of them, may pos- 
sibly be covered by a demonstration funding grant from the Urban Mass Transit 
Administration. 



52 



I 



♦ 



I 



I 



SECTION E. EVALUATION OF DEMAND FOR IMPROVED CORE DISTRIBUTION 

This section of the CirciJinferential Transit Report is presented in two parts. Part 
One contains eight capsule simimaries of revealed demand for improved core distribu- 
tion services, organized by geographic subarea. In Part Two, the demand data is 
applied to specific alignment decisions faced in the planning of Circumferential 
Transit. Part I examines distribution dif ficiencies of the existing transit network, 
and describes the characteristics of demand for additional services. Part Two is a 
simmary of benefits associated with the major transit improvement options. In 
short. Part One is organized in terms of the service needs of the eight subareas, 
while Part Two is organized in terms of facility performance. 

PART ONE: Subarea Analysis of Distribution Demand 

This study is concerned with the failure of the existing transit system to provide 
certain distribution services within a radius of about 2 miles from the center of 
Boston. The services under study can be divided into two major categories: dis- 
tribution to the downtown area, and distribution to the circumferential study area. 
The phrase "core distribution" is used to describe services which cover both CBD 
and circumferential movements. 

In order to analyze the potential demand for a vastly improved core distribution 
transit system, a hypothetical network was created which provided maximum transit 
coverage for the full core area. Figure 1.1, shows the area coverage, portrayed 
in terms oi 1200 foot walking circles from each station. Every station in the 
hypothetical network was connected witn every other station by direct, no-change- 
of vehicle service. The network simulated high quality transit service inter- 
connecting 42 stations with 135 scheduled vehicle routes. A major problem of 
previous circumferential analysis has been the necessity to rely on transit trip 
tables comprised of trips computed for networks with a serious lack of circumferential 
and other distribution services. The hypothetical netowrk used in this study has 
made possible the creation of new transit trip tables reflecting transit tripmaking 
over a nearly ideal core network. Within certain methodological constraints, (i.e. 
lack of trip generation sensitivity) the data represents a reasonable statement of 
maximum desire for transit services throughout the core area. 

There is no such thing as "a demand" for transportation. There is a specific level 
of demand responding to a specific level of supply. In this study, optimal attain- 
able supply was modeled for the study area. The term "demand" in the following 
subarea analyses refers to travel patterns by transit if the full hypothetical 
network were in place. "Demand" which is constrained by the realities of technology 
and investment is implied in Part Two, which deals with specific loads on specific 
systems. 

The sketch diagrams accompanying the eight demand summaries describe the desire 
for transit movement above and beyond that which is supplied by the existing transit 
plus a relocated Orange line from 128/Needham to Oak Grove in Maiden, and a subway 
surface line to Dudley Square within the study area, as well as Red Line extensions 
to Braintree and Alewife via Davis Square. For each subarea, the data presented 
shows the volume of movement on the full core hypothetical distribution network 
as if it was in place. Therefore, the data reveals the demand for core distribution 
services over and above the existing system, rather than total 0-D desire lines. 



53 




CIRCUMFERENTIAL C 

FIGURE 1.1 : COVERAGE MAP 

OF FULL CORE DISTRIBUTION 
TRANSIT NETWORK 



ESCRIPTION 



1200 



2400 



4800 FEET 




54 



Subarea Analysis: Somerville 

Figure 1:2 presents a schematic description of the demand for new distribution 
services from the inner Somerville stations. Even with the excellent downtown 
coverage of the hypothesized core distributor, the majority of Somerville riders 
continue to choose the inbound Orange Line service from Sullivan Station. Although 
demand from the area is predominantly radial. Figure 1:2 reveals a significant 
latent demand for better distribution to non-CBD destinations. 

This analysis sought information on potential stations in the inner Somerville 
area. Stations were located at Sullivan Square, Union Square, Washington Street 
at McGrath Highway, and the City Hall/High School site on Highland Avenue. The 
strongest of these facilities proved to be Union Square, with 3,560 boardings to 
the core distribution network. The City Hall station did not intercept Highland 
Avenue bus riders as well as initially hypothesized, getting only about 1,720 
riders, most of whom seem to be walk- in patrons however this may result of in- 
sufficient detail in the bus network. The Washington Street station, with 2,280 
boarders performed two functions. First, it collected about 1,000 walk-ins. 

Second, it provided a transfer point for commuter rail riders from the New Hampshire 
division service to Winchester and Woburn which had the effect of raising New 
Hampshire division patronage by 26 percent. 

Although the desirability of a bus interface on Highland Avenue has by no means 
been disproved by this exercise, it is a reasonable conclusion that a circumferential 
distributor can be satisfactorily connected to Somerville 's excellent feeder bus 
network by placing circumferential facility stations at Union and Sullivan Squares. 
With this investment, virtually every major Somerville bus line is connected with 
"cross town" express transit in addition to radial rapid transit. Such a Union- 
Sullivan alignment would allow the addition of a Washington Street station at a 
marginal cost equal to that of the station alone. 

Figure 1.2 shows that about 2,500 riders have demand for movement covered by the 
proposed circumferential facility, from the three Somerville stations included in 
the hypothetical network. The estimate of similar demand from a Sullivan station 
is 2000 riders, about half of whom come from Orange Line North. An additional 
500 Sullivan riders are bound for Somerville stations. 

It is clear that demand handled by a circumferential transit facility is not the 
highest transit priority for eastern Somerville. If vehicles on a full core 
distribution network served eastern Somerville, 4,200 riders would use them to 
make essentially radial trips, while 2,500 would use them to reach Cambridge, 
BU-Fenway, Huntington, and Roxbury areas. The 4,200 radial trips on the hypo- 
thetical distribution network are in addition to 5,000 Sullivan inbound boardings 
on the relocated Orange rapid transit line. 

Although circumferential demand is secondary in importance to Somerville, the 
combined demand of 2,000 from Sullivan/Orange with 2,500 from the three Somerville 
stations is significant at over 5,000 riders. 

Subarea Analysis: East Cambridge- Riverfront Area 

The hypothetical transit network tested by BTPR included a "loop" from the Kendall 
area to the Lechmere area. Stations were placed near the Transport Systems Center, 
the County Court House, and Lechmere Square; however, insufficient demand was found 



55 



Figure 1.2 



FROM SULLIVAN, WASHINGTON, 
UNION> AND CITY HALL STATIONS 




5.200 
to: inner CAMBRIDGE 
BU/KENMORE, FENWAY 4^500 
ROXBURY 

to: lechmere, cbd 
airport, broadway 
and back bay 



Demand for Core Distribution from Somerville Stations 
AND Sullivan Station 



56 



Figure 1.3 



FROM CENTRAL^ KENDALL^ 
, MIT^ HAMPSHIRE^ AND 
' CAMBRIDGEPORT 
\ STATIONS 



2700 

to: tlONNELY FIELD^ 
SOMERVILLEy AND 
LECHMERE 




2700 
TO: CBD 



5950 

TO bu/kenmore, 

FENWAY^ RUGGLES^ 
ROXBURY 



5400 

TO: BACK BAY 

AND AIRPORT 



Demand for Core Distribution from Inner Cambridge 



57 



to justify the alignment. Extensive manual examination of the data revealed that 
the limited walk-ins to Court House station were almost entirely simple diversions 
from Kendall and Lechmere stations on either side, which themselves were low. 
Even with no Court House Station remaining in the analysis, Lechmere station re- 
ceived only 2,440 riders for the combined radial and circumferential services of the 
core distribution network. (This low Lechmere volume is primarily attributable to 
the rerouting of old Lechmere buses to the New Sullivan station in the BTPR NW transit 
analysis. ) 

Based on available land use and travel data. First Street East Cambridge area does 
not seem to have the transit trip making characteristics to justify new service to 
the area. However, if major regionally oriented land development were to occur 
in the "Cambridge Parkway" area and/or in the rail yards to the immediate west of 
Bunker Hill Community College, the consequent transportation demand could be altered 
radically. In this situation a core distribution transit facility would be desirable 
if integrated into the developments themselves. 

Subarea Analysis: Central Cambridge 

Demand from the Central Cambridge area was determined by testing five stations in the 
area, one in the Kendall Redevelopment area, Broadway at Hampshire Street, Central 
Square (Red Line), MIT/Mass Ave., and Southern Cambridgeport . 

This area is served by excellent radial transit, and the main underserved demand 
revealed is for circumferential service, and distribution to the Prudential/Back 
Bay area. Demand for service to the retail and financial districts that would use 
a mode other than the Red Line is negligible. On the other hand, service from 
Central Cambridge to Northeastern, Prudential Back Bay station and the Insurance 
district would caryy about 4,900 inbound riders daily, as shown in Figure 1:3. 

This extended downtown distribution is not as important as the 8,600 trips desiring 
purely circumferential distribution. Preditably, the demand to the south is just 
about twice the demand north to Somerville and Lechmere. Between 9 and 10 thousand 
Red Line riders desire service from a distribution facility, with nearly 3/4 
approaching the area from the west. 

Subarea Analysis: BU-Kenmore Area 

The BU-Kenmore area displays one of the region's strongest desires for new core 
distribution services. The four stations tested in the hypothetical network study 
together have more than 21,000 passenger boardings, with 18,000 trips going out of 
the sxibarea. 

Figure 1:4 shows that demand for circumferential services are fairly evenly balanced 
with 4,900 to the North and 5,700 to the South. As the stations are almost entirely 
in the prime Green Line service area, it is logical that unmet demand for dis- 
tribution for the insurance district so well served by the Green Line stations is 
virtually negligible. What is revealing is the demand for services to the center 
of the financial district, and the North Station area. About 5,200 trips are 
assigned to the distributor destined to P.O. Square, an area of heavy western 
corridor destinations in which the long Green Line running times are a significant 
service impediment. Significant diversion to P.O. Square station was expected, but 
the magnitude of the volumes to the state, Haymarket, and North Station areas serve 
to emphasize a serious deficiency in existing Green Line service. 



58 



•ROM BU^ KENMOREy 
'ETERBOROUGH AND 
ENWAY STATIONS 



1-IGURE 1.4 



4.900 

to: inner CAMBRIDGE. 

EAST CAMBRIDGE. SOMERVILLE 

AND SULLIVAN 




6.000 

to: back bay. 

AND CBD 



5.750 

TO: FENWAY. 
RUGGLES. ROXBURY 
ROXBURY.AND 
BROADWAY 



1.300 

TO: SOUTH STATION. 
AND AIRPORT 



Demand for Core Distribution from BU/Kenmore 



59 



while the absolute magnitude of presently underserved demand to far CBD destinations 
is revealing so is the data concerning demand to nearby subareas . The data shows 
a volume of only 810 between the four stations of the BU-Kenmore area to the 3 
stations of the Hospital loop. (See Section F of this report for a discussion 
of this phenomenon.) The Relocated Orange Line corridor. Replacement Corridor and 
Red Line corridors, together receive 4,900 trips from the Kenmore-BU area, showing 
the significant regional nature of these trip ends. 

The absolute strength of each of the stations tested must be noted. The perceived 
lack of non-residential trip ends in the Peterborough/Queensberry neighborhood 
lead to an initial design decision to bypass the area. The revealed demand for a 
4,700 boarding station reverse of that initial evaluation. By way of comparison, 
the highest station on the Hospital loop attracts 3,400 passengers a day to the 
core distribution netowrk. This volume is similar to many stations which have 
transfers from other transit services, which this station does not. Among non-CBD 
stations with no direct rail transfer, it ranks with Grove Hall, Boston City Hospital, 
and Northeastern respectively. Additionally, the bordering stations, Fenway and 
Kenmore, remain strong, at 8,550 and 4,990 riders. 

In terms of latent demand, the case for a loop to the Queensberry area, and through 
Kenmore Square is strong indeed. The following chapter will deal more specifically 
with justification for facility investment by increment, and will present data 
concerning user benefits for the four possible Kenmore loop stations. 

Subarea Analysis: Hospital Loop Stations 

The Hospital Loop area proves to be one of the rare areas where demand for cir- 
cumferential movement is greater than demand for radial movement. In the hypo- 
thetical network the three hospital stations had direct service to the North and 
South over circumferential routes, and directly to downtown stations. For the 
purposes of this test, the Huntington Line was replaced by links of the core distri- 
bution network. Demand from the three stations to Back Bay and the rest of the 
CBD was 3,830 riders, while circumferential movements totalled 5,020 riders, as 
shown in Figure 1:5. 

The Hospital loop has received more advanced participatory design attention and 
review than most of the rest of the project. There is substantial agreement on 
the desirability of each of the three proposed stations, which attract 3,400 
(Brigham) , 3,180 (Boston State) and 2,940 (Deaconness/Beth Israel). These ob- 
servations support the general concensus that sufficient demand exists for the 
three stations. 

Subarea Analysis: Lower Roxbury to Grove Hall 

The policy response to the strong demand for transit services in the "Replacement 
Corridor" south of the Inner Belt alignment, and particularly south of Dudley Square 
represents one of the most significant planning problems facing the region's elected 
officials and community leaders. From early in Phase I BTPR demographic studies 
and transit market examinations revealed that the region's most concentrated demand 
for transit was located along Warren Street sough of Dudley Square. 

In terms of radial movements, the Southwest report has documented the options for 
a replacement corridor radial transit facility, which interface directly with the 
proposed circumferential facility. The present policy concern is focused on a 
concept developed through the participatory process which would not send Warren 
Street/Grove Hall service in a radial manner to the downtown area, but send these 
vehicles across the circumferential corridor. Part Two will examine performance 

60 



Figure 1.5 



ROM DEACONNESS^ 
RIGHAM AND BOSTON 
TATE STATIONS 



2.200 

to: bu/kenmore. 

INNER CAMBRIDGE. 
EAST CAMBRIDGE. 
SOMERVILLE. AND 
SULLIVAN 




3.800 

to: back bay. and 

CBD 



2.800 

to: ruggles. roxbury. 
broadway. south station, 
and airport 



Demand for Core Distribution from Fenway Hospitals 



61 



Figure 1.6 



1.250 
to: cbd and 

BACK BAY 




4,250 



TO: RUGGLES, 
FENWAY. BU/KENMORE. 
INNER CAMBRIDGE. 
EAST CAMBRIDGE. AND 
SOMERVILLE 



5.000 

TO: BROADWAY 
SOUTH STATION 
AND AIRPORT 



FROM LOWER ROXBURY. 
DUDLEY. WALNUT ST.. 
MARTIN LUTHER KING BLVD.. 
AND GROVE HALL STATIONS 



Demand for Core Distribution from Replacement Corridor 



62 



characteristics and provide sketch-planning evaluation of alternative alignments 
by seginents. The aim of this siabsection is to present what is known about transit 
demand in the area, with only minimal reference to facility options in response 
to these demand characeristics. 

Examination of origin-destination tables shows that demand from the Lower Roxbury, 
Roxbury, North Dorchester zones is overwhelmingly radial in nature. The tables 
show about 10,900 trips ending in the CBD, South End and Charlestown. By contrast, 
the number of trips ending in the Fenway, BU-Kenmore, Cambridge and Somerville 
is about 3,000 per day. This data mitigates against a decision to route Replace- 
ment Corridor services to the Northwest to the exclusion of downtown service. 
These numbers represent pure desire lines, and do not take into consideration that 
good radial service exists on the periphery of the replacement corridor, while 
satisfactory circumferential service does not presently exist. The question is 
legitimately raised where those who would board a Warren Street/Grove Hall transit 
line actually want to go. Assiiming that radial riders to downtown will continue 
to use both the Red and Relocated Orange lines, is the remaining demand stronger 
to the Northwest than to the downtown? 

The answer, again, is negative. The hypothetical network included replacement 
corridor service to Grove Hall. Direct transit service was tested for circum- 
ferential movement, and for radial to downtown movement. Figure 1.6 shows the 
loadings on the hypothetical network north of lower Roxbury station. Given fact 
of excellent radial transit service to the east (Red) and to the west (Orange) of 
the Warren Street segment, demand is less overwhelmingly radial than the initial 
0-D table showed; and yet demand from the facility to downtown (50 percent) is more 
than double the demand (23 percent) to the Fenway, Cambridge, Somerville, and all 
transit connections which would be made over these links. 

When organized in this manner, the data reveals the importance of circumferential 
connection between this area and the Red Line to the east. Examining destinations 
north of Lower Roxbury Station, the data shows that 27 percent is making a "right 
turn" while 23 percent are making a ' "Teft turn" towards Fenway, BU, and Cambridge. 
If certain trips (mainly cross-harbor trips) are removed from this routing, passenger 
flow from the facility are evenly divided between the direction of Boston City Hospital 
and the direction of Ruggles Street. The essential policy information here is that 
"cross town" express transit demand cannot be simply expressed as a matter of better 
service in the direction of Cambridge. The revealed deficiency in non-radial net- 
work performance involves poor linkages to critical points of network interconnection. 
Based on these brief observations of replacement corridor demand, the importance 
of connectivity with the Red Line considerations is made below and in Part Two. 

Subarea Analysis — the Relocated Orange Line 

The Orange Line needs little description here. Approximately 33 percent of Orange 
Line riders seeking supplemental transit distribution are bound eastward (right 
turn) and 66 percent westward (left turn) . Demand for a supplementary mode to reach 
downtown stations is almost negligible. 

Subarea Analysis — Red Line South 

More than any other element of the region's transit network, the Red Line is in 
need of complementary distribution services. This statement is true relative 
to its downtown distribution deficiencies as well as dirciimferential distribution 
needs. Given that the volumes from the southern Red Lines are projected to exceed 



63 



Figure 1.7 



7.900 



TO: CBD, 
AND EAST 
CAMBRIDGE 



7.100 

TO: BACK BAY 




8.150 
to: roxbury. 
ruggles. fenway. 

AND BU/KENMORE 



1.^00 

to: 

SOUTH STATION 
Am AIRPORT 



Demand for Core Distribution from Broadway Station 



64 



■STOtsc;r?B3rx 



those from the Northwest, the interchange between the Red Line south and the dis- 
tribution network logically appears as the most important station on the system. 
The demand for improved distribution from inbound Red Line trains from Ashmont 
and Braintree is about 15,000. This compares with 7,000 inbound riders from 
the Northwest who would choose improved distribution services if provided at Central 
Square, the second highest potential transfer movement appearing in the network. 
The summary schematic is presented in Figure 1:7. 

Examining the demand from the South Shore line, it is significant that of the 
vol\ime on inbound trains, 42 percent have desire lines which would be accommodated 
on an improved core distribution network. This data is totally consistent with the 
summary observation of BTPR'S Downtown Distribution study (January 1972) which 
pointed to Broadway Station as the optimal intercept point for 40 percent of Red 
Line tr ipmak er s . 

The Red Line in distinct contrast to the summary statements presented above for the 
Orange Line shows a significant need for core distribution services. Several 
different categories of demand for supplementary services exist from Broadway. 
Most importantly are the more than 8,000 trips destined for City Hospital, Rox- 
bury. Hospital Loop, and BU-Kenmore. This demand is most significant, perhaps 
the largest single identifiable demand for circumferential movement. Phrased 
differently, the Red Line south will be the single largest contributor to volumes 
along the proposed circiimferential transit facility. 

PART TWO: ANALYSIS OF ALIGNMENT OPTIONS BY SEGMENT 

This section of the report is concerned with application of demand data to the 
several alignment questions faced in the BTPR circumferential study. It is con- 
cerned with the facility alignment from its Red Line south interface clockwise 
to an Orange Line connection to the North, with a substudy of a Harvard Square 
terminus. Alignment options are presented in a relative perspective here, with 
issues of absolute justification covered in Section F, which deals in total system 
loadings and performance. The section is not structured on purely geographic basis 
but rather in an attempt to provide a strategic, sequential resolution of issues. 
Alignment issues are addressed in the following order: 

A. Cambridge Issues 

1) BU to Harvard Square or BU to Orange Line. 

2) Community College via Riverfront or Sullivan via Union Square. 

3) BU-Union Square via Prospect Street, or BU-Union Square via Grand Junction. 

4) Central Spur. 

B. Boston Issues 

1) BU-Fenway direct vs BU-Fenway area with Kenmore and Peterborough Street 
loop. 

2) Hospital Area-Dudley-Red Line or Hospital Area-Dudley-Grove Hall. 

3) Alignment to Red Line with and without a spur to Grove Hall. 



65 



R^ 



77'7/f>$^|/j^ 




:r 





B.U. TO Harvard vs. B.U. to 
Orange Line 



'"^ik^,; 



y'/L 












',^ » 




\/^'< 




\- 



7 






4r/ '"'/'^6-/ ■ 






f 



•'/ / A £'*■'- 






>L i <. \ ^i 



y^4y 






W.S 




«^- 



, -^=»»w/ 



.--"-I 



1 



■S-..i 






vngB»^- 







M 



':/X> 



X, 




Lt 



A. Cambridge Alignment Issues 

1. BU-Harvard Alignment or BU-Inner Cambridge Alignment 

North of BU and the Charles River, the proposed transit facility could be routed 
either in a radial configuration to Harvard Square, or completing the circum- 
ferential concept through Inner Cambridge, and on to an Orange Line interchange 
to the north. Table 2.1 is presented to show essential origin-destination in- 
formation relative NW-SW transit travel. The critical information concerns the 
number of travellers who would benefit from a direct Harvard-SW alignment. 

Travellers who are on board the inbound Red Line trains as they approach Harvard 
station would not benefit from a Harvard-SW circumferential alignment as compared 
with a Central Square transfer point. The Red Line has exceptional line speed 
characteristics, and it is doubtful if the distributor could make the radial 
movement any faster than the 90 second line time from Harvard to Central. However, 
there is a significant group of transit that would benefit from a Harvard Terminus 
of the circumferential transit facility. These are Southwest riders who either 
walk or bus into Harvard station itself. These riders will have an extra mode 
and an extra transfer. Assuming a 24-hour weighted average headway of 5 minutes, 
the perceived travel time added to the each trip for these riders is approximately 
5 minutes (1/2 headway x 2.5). 

The number of benefiting passengers can be determined by two methods. Table 2.1 
shows that 948 trips are made from the zones which feed into Harvard Station assum- 
ing Porter Davis and Alewife Stations are in the network. To this number must 
be added a small niomber for feeder bus patrons from Allston or other areas outside 
the Harvard/West Cambridge zones. This value can be set at 100 trips, making 
1,050 patrons from Harvard Station to the Southwest Circumferential study area. 

Approximately 12 percent of Red Line riders chose to transfer to the circumferential 
service at the point of interchange. When this factor is applied to inbound Harvard 
boardings, the resulting demand estimate is 1,080. The magnitude of inconvenience 
caused by not constructing a BU-Harvard linkage can be approximated by noting that 
the first year transportation benefit of 1,100 riders saving 12 minutes is approxi- 
mately $165,000. 

The number of Harvard boarders benefiting from a BU-Harvard alignment can be 
set at 1,100. Because there are no pedestrian activity centers along this alignment 
a midway station could be expected to attract about 1,000 riders, and few of these 
would have destinations in the SW circumferential study area. On the other hand, 
the number of riders who would directly benefit from an alignment through Inner 
Cambridge to the Red Line ranges between 5,000 to Kendall only and 10,000 if 
extended to Sullivan via Union. 

2. Orange Interchange at Sullivan vs. Community College 

Like the basic decision between a BU-Harvard and BU-Inner Cambridge alignment, 
a preliminary resolution of the Orange Line/circumferential station location 
appears justifiable on the basis of presently available data. There are two logical 
alternatives: Community College (at Prison Point Bridge) and Sullivan Station. 
The Community College Station is most logically approached through the Cambridge 
Parkway development. First Street, and southerly Lechmere Square area. An align- 
ment approaching Sullivan Square would traverse the Union Square/Washington Street 
area of Somerville, and serve the most important teirminus for Somerville bus routes, 
Sullivan Station itself. 



67 



TABLE 2.1 



Demand From Selected NW Districts By Trip Category 



FROM 

Inner Cambridge 

Inner Somerville 

Harward Square + 
West Cambridge 

North Cambridge 

Outer Somerville 



Downtown, Back Bay, South 
End, South Bsoton, East 
Boston, Revere 
"ESSENTIALLY RADIAL" 

4734 

6323 



3982 
2978 
2987 



BU-Kenmore, Fenway 
Hospitals, Brookline, 
Roxbury, North Dorchester 
"ESSENTIALLY CIRCUMFERENTIAL" 

1739 

833 



948 
939 
526 



68 




N.W. ALIG^FNT nFrT.<^Tn[\l f^|n■ 9 
Orange Line Terminal at Sullivan 
OR Community College 



~'//j:> 



-ff ' f/oi/ 



-w 




t^: 




v^-^ 






.■;'£;vvili^ 



«^ "' -v-—. .. 




Determination of the optimal Orange Line connection must be based on 1) transfer 
volumes from the Orange Line north, 2) transfer volumes from the Orange Line south, 
and 3) bus and pedestrian feeder patterns of the two stations. Whether viewed 
in terms of Orange Line connections, or bus line connections, Sullivan appears to 
be the most effective location. 

The trip-end data revealed in the subarea analysis presented earlier in this report 
suggests that a circumferential alignment near the Middlesex County Court house 
does not appear justifiable when compared with the ridership potential of the Union 
Square area to the north. 

Sullivan and Community College are approximately equidistant from the intersection 
of the Grand Junction and Fitchburg of the Boston & Maine, Penn Central railroads, 
about 1.25 minutes of travel time at 30 mph. Figure II-l portrays the alignment 
options between the alternative transit interchanges. Travel time on the re- 
located Orange Line between Community College and Sullivan Station is slightly 
more than one minute. Thus, when viewed in terms of Orange Line transfers, a 
Sullivan circumferential station saves one minute of travel time for Orange Line 
riders from north: Community College saves one minute of travel time for Orange 
Line riders from the south. The critical fact is that about 1,700 circijmferential 
riders approach the facility from the Orange Line north, and only about 1,000 
from the south. The difference between volumes by direction is not overwhelming, 
but tends to mitigate in favor of a Sullivan Station. The relative strength of 
the two stations as connections to the bus network should be further examined 
in subsequent studies . 

Sullivan is much more important as a feeder bus terminal than Community College . 
Task A analysis (which disaggregates demand by access mode) shows Sullivan to have 
about 2-1/2 times the feeder bus patronage of Community College. Approximately 
1,200 circumferential riders board from feeder buses and walk-ins combined. (Walk- 
ins, however, are not a major component of Sullivan boarders.) Thus, both in terms 
of relationship to the radial rapid transit and the extensive feeder bus network 
of Somerville, Sullivan appears to be superior to Community College as the northern 
terminus of the BTPR circiimferential facility. 

3. Routing Between Cambridgeport and Union Square 

There are two basic alignments for the circumferential facility between the 
Charles River and Inner Somerville. This alignment choice is the most difficult 
in the northwest, and most susceptible to further analysis in post-BTPR planning. 
Both alignments would have a station in the Cambridgeport/MIT west area. From 
there, one alignment would follow a general Prospect Street alignment, with stop 
at Central, Inman, and Union Squares. The alternative service for Inner Cambridge 
could have stations at MIT/Mass., Kendall and Union Square, with optional stations 
at Donnely Field on Cambridge Street, and Broadway at Hampshire, in the vicinity of 
Technology Square. 

Again, impacted groups of transit users can be examined by mode of access to the 
circumferential facility. In terms of sheer volume, those desiring circumferential 
distribution from inbound Red Line trains comprise the most important element of 
demand. Of the circumferential distribution demand by inbound Red Line riders, 
about 80 percent is towards the south and west. For these riders, a Central Square 
transfer point is superior to a Kendall Square transfer by 1.7 minutes in the 
specific network tested. For inbound riders going North and East on the circiimfer- 
ential, a Kendall interchange is slightly poorer than Central. For Red Line riders 
approaching from Boston, a Prospect Street alignment has comparable travel times 



70 










[J.W. ALIGNMENT DECISION NO. 5 
Prospect St. Alignment or 
Grand Junction Alignment 











-. 








"> 


'n 


\ 










k 




1 


^^r^ 


V 




"^ 




S 


) 


1 


"fp 


Nt 


r 


1 


^- JiiA ■^'"- 


/^ 


/ 


^ 


^-* '^J ^ 


/> 


r 




1 


^ 


\ 


J 

-J 

si 

1 



with Grand Junction to the north, and poorer performance for trips transferring south 

and west. This is largely attributable to the lack of an MIT station. ' 

I 
Assviming that time savings of inbound- to-north (favoring Central) cancel out the < 

time savings of outbound- to- south transferees (favoring Kendall) a sketch planning , 

exercise reduces the value of Central's Red Line user advantage to that value of 

3,200 people (4,000 x.8) times 3.4 minutes of travel time, (1.7 x 2 daily trips). j 

This represents a yearly user benefit of about $136,000. ; 

From the criterion of effective Red Line interconnection, an alignment including 
Central Square is superior to one relying solely on Kendall Square. Two prime I 

functions are being supplied by the Cambridge alignment of the Circumferential 
Distributor. One, it is picking up Red Line riders for distribution throughout the 1 
Southwest circumferential study area. Two, it serves to distribute riders to areas of | 
developing land intensity, whose origins are predominantly south of Charles River. 1 
The effectiveness of the transit facility as a distributor of trip ends must be 
examined as carefully as its effectiveness as an interceptor of radial movements . : 

The data created by this analysis, which assiomes superior distribution services I 

throughout the core, can be used to compare the distribution functions of the two 
alignments. The number of total transit trip ends served directly by each alignment I 
is the most indicative index of effectiveness for this kind of service. Using walk- ; 
ing distances of approximately 1/3 of a mile, the Grand Junction alignment serves 
a landmass with 15,200 transit trip ends, while the Prospect Street alignments 
serves an area with 11,600 transit trip ends. The Grand Junction alignment cal- I 

culation assiomes that only one station is constructed in the Kendall-through-Tech- j 
Square redevelopment area. If the "Hampshire" Station is included in the calculations, 
the number of transit trip ends located within the walking rises to about 17 , 000 . ■ 
Thus, an alignment to Kendall could serve half again as many trip ends as an align- 
ment to Central. 

It is worthwhile to examine the walk- in potential for Central Station, vs. that of i 
MIT/Mass, plus Kendall Stations. Previous studies of the area which disaggregated 
boarders by access mode showed Kendall to have the same "walk-in" volumes as Central, 
but far lower volumes of feeder bus riders. If this data is used, it becomes clear 

that Central and Kendall are forecast to be similar in serving trips which walk , 

to their destination (or from their origin). Thus, a sketch-planning summary of the I 

direct (walking) distribution coverage of the two alignments finds Cambridgeport i 

Station constant. Central and Kendall roughly equal. The differences between the ; 

two alignments can be reasonably understood to be the walk-in patronage of the | 

MIT/Mass. Station, or about 3,000 daily riders. (Once more, the increment would ; 

be somewhat larger if Hampshire Station was included) . j 

It must be noted that there are two reasonable levels of travel demand from the 
Kendall area. The BTPR trip table, used above to compute the number of trip ends 
in the area, were based on conservative estimates of land use intensity for the 
Kendall redevelopment area. No attempt was made in the BTPR land use program 
to simulate upper limits of development potential for the area. In short, the trip- 
end data presented above is based on conservative land development assumptions . 
On the other hand, higher level of intensity of land development had been assumed 
in the TASK A study, which is the source of the walk-in data used above. 

In s\ammary, the Kendall alignment ranks higher when judged in terms of effectiveness 
of transit trip end coverage . The Central alignment presents a more direct path for 



72 



Red Line to circumferential users as a whole and has a considerably larger role 
as a terminal point in the local feeder bus system. 

It has been established that Central is a better location for the Red Line inter- 
change point in terms of Red Line riders transfering from west to south, and for 
feeder bus patrons. It is important to calculate if their disbenefit from a Kendall 
interchange is exceded in magnitude by the benefit experienced by walk-in riders at 
the new MIT station. The results of such a calculation can be demonstrated by the 
following sketch planning exercise. First, assume that the walk-in potential of Central 
Station is approximately equal to the walk-in potential of Kendall Station. Second, 
assume that in-bound Red line passengers transferring north on the circumferential do 
slightly better with the Central location, while out-bound Red line riders transferring 
south do slightly better with the Kendall location; and that these two factors cancel 
each other out. Third, assume that each of 3,200 riders who transfer from in-bound Red 
line to south bound circumferential each add approximately 1.7 minutes of travel time; 
and that 500 bus riders to Central will have to experience ten minutes of additional 
travel time. Lastly, assume that each of the 3,000 walk-ins to the MIT station will gain 
ten minutes of travel time by the Kendall alignment. The results of the sketch calcula- 
tion show that the level of benefit experienced by the MIT walk-ins is about 2.8 times 
the level of disbenefit experienced by the bus and Red line users. 

This analysis has purposefully ignored the issue of comparative capital cost. 
The central observation being made here is that even without a second station in 
the Kendall redevelopment area, the user benefits resulting from bringing new acces- 
sibility to an underserved area far outweighs the benefit to be derived to a well- 
served node by significant service improvement. The fact that the Kendall/Grand 
Junction alignment is far less expensive than the Central/Prospect Street tunnel 
further supports the conclusions implied by demand data alone. 

Viewed from the perspective a circumferential service going beyond the Red Line to 
Sullivan, the Prospect tunnel looks somewhat stronger than in the Red Line terminal 
perspective. If the direct comparison is made, Inman Square is revealed to be 
a stronger pedestrian activity generator than the Donnelly Field area served in the 
Grand Junction alternative, but still inferior to the Grand Junction route. However, 
even with this relative improvement in coverage, the Grand Junction alignment be- 
tween Cambridgeport and Union Square covers an area with 20 percent more transit 
trip-ends than does the Prospect tunnel and at much lower cost. 

4. Consideration of a Central Spur 

The full Prospect Street alignment tunnel is roughly comparable in cost with a 
Grand Junction alignment plus a spur from MIT to Central Square, although base 
data for both options is somewhat crude. If the level of investments is at all 
similar, considerable design attention must go to the long-term implementation 
of the Grand Junction plus Central Spur option, which covers a land area with 65 
percent more transit trip-ends than the Prospect Street alignment. 



73 



► 






Y 7St// / / / / / ■'■6' /7 ,' 

^7 L.//^/^ / / / / / /h/A-J 



'^^Kmm 



*<^ CEKTRAL 




NEW EN 
CONFf" 




BOSTON AND MAINE 
RAILROAD YARDS .: 



vWJ' j ~>~~>lechmere 
EAST CAMBRIDGE 



WASHINGTON 
ELMS AND 
NEWTOWNE 
COURT 
HOUSING 



N^ PROJECTS sOUAJir 

** — — — ■.»__ ^BIndall; 

POLAROID CORpia?'"* "••■■■ 



CARR FASTENER CO. 

ANSPORTATION 

MS CENTER 

BADGER CO. 
NDALLSQUAff 



^ % 

\ 

*'£ NORTH VV-^ 
. v STATION Vfe. 



/ 



^% 



• m.,^^ CAMBRIDGE GATEWAY 









v-uri 



c;.w. Al TMFJT DFCTSI ON NO. 

B.U. TO Fenway Direct, or via One 

Way Loop to Kenmore and Peterborough St. 



iimi^ \ 



i i 






COTTAGE FAR 
NEIQHBOHHOO 




B.U. BR 



^ , ^ BOSf 

°NVVEATf/~'«»fj,,m ■ KtN^RE SQUARE 

^ jji" WHEELOj 

^' ^y COLLEQJf 

-^^•' BWMAlUEL 






■3^^: 



,,iimi"""" ""•"•ii§,„. 



"•'••J 



SOUTH "^s 
STATION J «» 



SOUTH f* / 
POSTAL / / 

ANNEX-# — / 



"■•■I.."' 



SOUTH END 



I 

'mass 

MENTAL 
HEALTH orrtHk 
CENTER g^llff 

:., ■ HOSPITAl 



• CATHEDRAL 



I BOSTON 
/ HERALD- 
/ TRAVELER 



MBTA 
SOUTH 
BOSTON 
YARDS 



CENTER 

BOSTON CITY 
HOSPITAL 



I '%* N.ENG. 
\ '."?. BAPTIST 
>. *^ HOSPITAL 

5 l** , ROBERT B. 

or Jx . BfilQHAM 
■^'f!-IS S • HOSPITAL 

'^^l JAMAICA PLAIN 



CAMPUS HIGH 
URBAN RENEWAL 
AREA . , 



ROXSE, 

CAMDEN AND V 
LENOX ST. y 
HOUSING -^ 
OWER PROJECTS/ 

XBURY / 

INNER BELT X 
CORRIDOR » 

/ GREEN 

/ SHOE CO, 

,.iSik'/. / ORCHARD PARK | jA.y«-. 

'<. / HOUSING PROJECT ., &,XI*C=/ 

DUDLE^'SQUARE , ■' 

ROXBURY HIGHLANDS f ROXBURY 
1J t MUNICIPAL 

/ CENTER 

is • ^ ^ >». '^•/wA?HINGTON 



RncTnu BOSTON 

BOSTON FLOWER 

UNIVERSITY EXCHANGE 

MEDICAL EXOMANtit 



'giletteco. 

I 
I 
I 
I 

-J • BROADWAY 
glHOUSING 
El PROJECT 



PARKER HILL O.O' *V 

NEIGHBORHOOD ^Z 










I / SOUTH 
BOSTON 



i^^J^O ^^ "^iS?^iV ^^^^^*'*""-:&^. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 



J 
I 



^is- 






i' 



.# 



A\^'/>i=^^ ,^T^' 



-r^ 



/ 



x>t^*- ROXBURY 



"1 sS'V 



i>-- — RAPID TRANSIT 
-gii^,......,,... COMMUTER RAIL 






CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR DESCRIPTION 



I — L 



1200 2400 



4800 FEET 




74 



mmm 



B. BOSTON ALIGNMENT ISSUES 

1. Charles River to Fenway: Direct or Kenmore Loop 

There are two alignment options between the Charles River and the Fenway Hospitals 
area. In the first, stations would be provided at Boston University, and at the 
Fenway Park station of the Riverside line. A two way deep bored tunnel would 
connect the two stations directly. The second alignment option would provide 
circumferential service direct to Kenmore Station, with an additional stop in the 
Peterborough Street neighborhood of the Fens. This section would be located near 
the corner of Jersey and Boylston streets. Kenmore and Peterborough stations would 
be served by rerouting the northbound alignment into a loop configuration. The 
initial BTPR work on the circumferential project examined the direct Fenway to BU 
alignment on the basis of its clear cut construction simplicity by comparison with 
the loop alternative. At the same time, an indepth analysis was undertaken to deter- 
mine the level of user benefit to be derived by choosing the more expensive Peter- 
borough/Kenmore loop configuration. This analysis of user benefit is included as 
a technical appendix to this chapter. 

The analysis of demand and user benefit strongly points to the policy conclusion 
that the Kenmore loop is justified. Indeed, Section F of this report presents 
quantified statements of user benefit which suggest that the benefits to be derived 
from investment in this subarea are the highest in the circumferential study area, 
and second highest in the entire core area. The results of the manual examination 
of the benefits created by the addition of the one way Kenmore loop appear below 
as Table 2.2. Nearly a million dollars per year of consumer benefit is gained by 
the facility re-alignment. 

Table 2.2 shows that there are two categories of trip makers who would receive 
disbenefit from the adoption of the loop configuration in the subarea. Most important 
are the riders with neither origin nor destination in the area, but with desire to 
travel northbound from the Fenway Hospitals area (and south) to Cambridge and 
Somerville destinations. About 7,000 daily minutes of travel time are added to 
these trip makers experience. Second, riders from southern circumferential origins 
to the Riverside and Commonwealth lines, together with riders from Riverside who 
desire to transfer northbound suffer a grand total of 3,660 daily minutes of additional 
travel time . 

The travel time savings experienced by other travelers, however, more than compensate 
for this disbenefit. The largest single group of beneficiaries, the analysis shows, 
are the pedestrians who walk into Peterborough Street station. These users had 
previously been served only be a low frequency feeder bus , or by long walking times 
to Fenway and Kenmore stations. Over 41,000 minutes of decreased travel time are 
enjoyed by this group. Secondly, riders making trips between the Central Subway 
and the circumferential gain considerably by fact that they may now transfer at 
Kenmore and gain the advantage of the combined headways of the three branch lines 
serving that station. Over 31,000 daily minutes of travel are saved by this category 
of beneficiaries. Lastly, the walk-ins at Kenmore with specifically circumferential 
destinations, and all transfer makers from Beacon Street enjoy additional sejrvice 
improvement, as shown on Table 2.2. 

In summary, the adoption of a loop configxiration in the Kenmore area returns more 
than eight times the level of benefit to the favored group of riders than its dis- 



75 



TABLE 2.2 



TRIP DESCRIPTION 



BENEFIT 



DISBENEFIT 



B. 1:1 

Northbound Trips Through Study Area 

B. 1:2 

Between Auditorium and Distributor 

B. 1:3 

From Riverside - North 
From South to Riverside 
From South to Commonwealth 

Between Beacon + Distributor 

B. 1:4 Pedestrians 

To + From Peterborough Street 

Station 

B. 1:5 

Pedestrians To + From Kenmore Station 

Subtotals 

Final 



31,460 Daily Minutes 



4,180 Daily Minutes 
41,140 Daily Minutes 

13,470 Daily Minutes 

90,250 Daily Minutes 
79,590 



7,000 Daily Minutes 



3,660 Daily Minutes 



10,660 Daily Minutes 



First Year Estinated Transport Benefit From Addition of Kenmore Loop = $994,875 



76 



benefit to riders inconvenienced. An alternative public policy would establish 
the one way loop to Peterborough Street and Kenmore Stations, in addition to a two 
way trunk segment between Fenway and Boston University stations. This would have 
the additional impact of alleviating the 10,660 daily minutes of disbenefit ex- 
perienced by the minority of riders. However, this design decision must legiti- 
mately await further policy determination concerning the long term options for the 
circumferential facility (i.e., a public policy which foresaw no major expansion 
of the facility would opt for the one way loop only alternative, while a public 
policy which foresaw development of an elaborate network would clearly favor con- 
struction of the two way trunk in addition) . 

2. Relationship With Replacement Corridor 

The following two sections of the Circumferential Report examine the several alterna- 
tive roles for a possible tunnel segment between Dudley Square and Grove Hall. 
Examination of this spur creates information basic to the most important alignment 
question faced in the Southwest: should the facility be routed so as to complete 
the circumferential loop, or routed in a radial manner to a terminus at Grove Hall. 
Prom a facility segment these questions are addressed: 1) under what circumstances 
is a Dudley-Grove Hall tunnel desirable; 2) should it be built as a spur from a 
complete circumferential line, or as a eastern terminal for "cross town" service 
to Cambridge and Somerville. 

This section describes loading characteristics of the subject line under three 
separate network assumptions. The next section presents descriptions of these 
benefits associated with each of the three options. 

The BTPR moderate investment circumferential network included a short spur from 
the Inner Belt/arterial alignment to Dudley Station. Figure 2.3 shows the re- 
lationship of Roxbury traffic to the other functions of the circumferential facility. 
A "select link" analysis of transit passengers on board the circumferential facility 
leaving Ruggles Station shows that of 8,800 riders 3,200 are bound for Roxbury, while 
5,600 are bound for Boston City Hospital, Broadway and South Station. In addition, 
Figure 2.3 reveals that Roxbury demand for circumferential movement is relatively 
evenly divided between east and west turning movements. 

This section of the circumferential alignment analysis addresses the issue of a 
possible spur service beyond Dudley Station to the Grove Hall/Franklin Field area. 
The issue of such a transit link is, unfortunately, rendered complex by the several 
possible connections to the rest of the transit network. Specifically, the circum- 
ferential to Grove Hall link could occur in a configuration which (1) provide 
service to both downtown and circumferential destinations, (2) provide service 
to all circumferential destinations, and (3) provide service only to the circum- 
ferential destinations lying to the north and west of the corridor. Ridership 
using the proposed spur would vary considerably between the alternative network 
connections, and user benefits would vary even more dramatically. 

As noted earlier in the demand analysis by subarea, the Warren Street corridor, 
south of Dudley station, represents the single most concentrated area of transit 
demand for the region. Logically enough, capital investment in this area is bound 
to return significant benefit, based on absolute volume of ridership alone. 



77 



Figure 2.3 

relationship of replacement corridor traffic to 
other circumferential movement 

(DUDLEY AND LOWER PlOXBURY STATIONS ONLY^ NO 6rOVE HALL SPUR) 



E WAY VOLUME 
T OF RUGGLES 
ATION ~ 



8.800 




8.700__oNE WAY LINE VOLUME 

INTO Boston city 

HOSPITAL STATION 



3.200 3.100 



mmmmmmmm—^i'^^'^'^^mmim 



If connected directly to all major (circumferential and radial) destinations, the 
spur would be a major link indeed. The five stations. Lower Roxbury, Dudley, Walnut 
Street, Martin Luther King, and Grove Hall would attract nearly 20,000 passenger 
boardings. By way of comparison this spur, of less than 1.6 miles in length, would 
attract more passengers than the 12 mile Riverside line and would be roughly comparable 
to the South Shore line in 1980. 

The recurrent issue in the analysis of a spur from the circumferential distributor 
to Grove Hall concerns the fact that demand from the Warren/Blue Hill corridor is 
overwhelmingly radial. Thus, when only connected to circumferential service, the 
spur would improve the quality of feeder service for many patrons, but would provide 
direct service for a distinct minority of its users. Phrased in other terms, major 
investment in a purely radial facility would better respond to the characteristics 
than investment in a purely circumferential facility. 

The following analysis will examine Warren Street spur service options in descending 
order of returned benefits to the areas transit users: (1) service to both radial 
and circiimferential destinations, (2) service as a spur of the circumferential 
facility, and (3) service as circumferential "cross town" facility with connections 
in the direction of Cambridge, but not in the direction of South Boston. 

2.i Direct Radial and Circ\imferential Connections from the Spur 

The BTPR Heavy Core Distribution network included a spur from Lower Roxbury station 
to Grove Hall station, with three intermediate stations. From these stations 18,500 
external trips were generated. The prime concern of this subsection are the approxi-. 
mately 11,500 external trips boarding south of Dudley, and the user benefit accruing 
to the feeder areas of those stations. The data is not presently organized to deter- 
mine precisely the user benefit accruing from the construction south of the Dudley 
alone. However, data more than sufficient for the sketch planning exercises under- 
taken here has been assembled from a variety of sources. 

Figure 2.4 shows the directional flows north from a tunnel with direct service to 
downtown and circumferential areas. Approsimately 5,000 riders use this service who 
use the Orange line (4,000) and Red line (3,000) in the networks without the Grove 
Hall tunnel. Directed bus riders with both radial and circumferential destinations 
appear at Walnut and Grove Hall stations in this network. In addition, new riders 
with downtown destinations appear at Dudley station, compared with the network in 
which the Dudley spur is connected only to the circumferential distributor. 

2.ii Grove Hall Service as a Circumferential Spur 

A new Dudley-Grove Hall link would provide service improvement for a significant 
number of transit users, although their user benefit would be considerably lower. 
The lower benefit derives from the fact t-hat corridor destinations are concentrated 
in the downtown area. Although ridership is still significantly high, many riders 
are now assigned to a high quality improved feeder service, and must transfer modes 
to reach their destinations. 

The ridership estimate for the five stations of the full spur line has been estimated 
at 15,000 inbound riders a day, (live volume north of Lower Roxbury station) , as 
shown on Figure 2.5. This facility attracts fewer bus feeder trips from nearby 
areas. Manual examination of the origin-destination trip tables for these riders 



79 



^lON 2.1 : GROVE HALL SPUR 
TH BOTH CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND 
jWNTOWN DISTRIBUTION. 



FIGURE 2.4 
9.250 



4.250 




5.000 



PirON 2. 1 1 : GROVE HALL SPUR 
ITH CIRCUMFERENTIAL 
ISTRIBUTION. » 

Dj/DU 



4.250 




5.000 



'TION 2. Ill: GROVE HALL SP 
IITH PARTIAL C IRCUMFERENTI A 
STRIBUTION. g 750* 



15.000 



4.250 




13.000 



Volume which now 
must transfer from 
the facility to 
some radial service 



with immediate travel options suggests that about 2,500 have destinations which 
would be well served by using the feeder bus to the Warren Street stations, while 
the rest route themselves to their essentially radial destinations via the Orange and 
Red rapid transit lines. As demonstrated in Figure 2.5 this means that approxi- 
mately 5,750 radial riders use the circumferential facility as a feeder mode to 
transfer points at Broadway, Ruggles and Kenmore. 

Approximately half of these radial riders are walk-ins to the three stations south 
of Dudley. There are 4,500 walk-in boarders on the light rail line south of Dudley 
in the base network. One thousand of these riders desire circumferential distribution, 
while 3,000 are radial. This represents a reasonable estimate of those walk-ins to 
the three stations who have radial destinations, and use the new spur as an express 
feeder mode to some radial rapid transit service. The rest are assumed to be bus 
riders whose trip format is a less-than-ideal feeder bus to feeder transit to line 
haul transit. The minimum path assignment process assigns only those riders who 
have no better route to the facility. The conclusion can be drawn that those in this 
category have received only minor travel time benefits from the investment in a 
circumferential spur south of Dudley. 

The category of radial trip makers using the circumferential spur south of Dudley 
should be considered in order to analyze the function of the circumferential spur 
in comparison with an extension of the South End Light Rail line beyond Dudley Square. 
For a rider with an origin at Dudley, a trip to Park or Washington station would take 
about 12.5 perceived minutes of travel time on the South End Light Rail line, versus 
15.9 via fast circumferential feeder, including a transfer to the Orange line at 
Ruggles Street. These Dudley riders will be well served in either eventuality examined 
here: light rail to Dudley is included in all networks examined. The rider board- 
ing at Walnut Street desiring radial transit service would do about 2.5 minutes 
better with the light rail extension. It is at Martin Luther King station where 
perceived travel times become just about equal between direct light rail, vs. fast 
feeder to Orange line. Riders boarding at Grove Hall would minimize their downtown 
travel time by taking the new feeder spur service offered by the circumferential 
system. 

Warren corridor riders can be divided into three categories: those with radial 
destinations; those with circumferential destinations; and those with destinations 
so located in the network that they can be reasonably well served with either a 
radial or circumferential vehicle as the first transit mode. Of the riders who 
are already on-board the vehicles of the Heavy Core Distribution Network, 50 per- 
cent go radial, with 27 percent and 23 percent going in each circumferential direction. 
Of riders on board a radial-only vehicle in the subject corridor, about 25 percent 
choose to get off and transfer to a circumferential distributor. 

From this data, BTPR staff has derived a summary estimate of subject corridor riders 
in each of the three categories above; 50 percent have radial destinations; 25 
percent have circumferential destinations; and 25 percent have destinations whose 
first mode is largely determined by what they are supplied as a feeder mode. 

Descriptions of the user benefit for this option are presented in a- comparative 
perspective below, after the description of the final service strategy, "cross 
town" connections only. 



81 



2. iii Partial Circumferential Service 

In this service option the transit mode serving the new connection to Grove Hall 
is routed northwest at Lower Roxbury station and proceeds through Ruggles, and on 
to Cambridge and Somerville. No provision is made for direct service from the Replace- 
ment corridor to Boston City Hospital Station, Broadway, or South Station. 

Rider ship forecasts for this alternative are determined by the number of Warren 

Avenue corridor riders who would board the spur in order to reach City Hospital 

and Red line stations. Approximately 5,000 riders from the six replacement corridor j 

stations would route themselves over the "right-turn" movement if the link were 

in place. It is important to note that virtually the entire running length of the 

replacement corridor served by a Grove Hall spur is also covered by a bus line with 

one terminal at Andrew, Columbia, Savin Hill, Fields Corner, or Ashmont station. j 

A significant number of subject corridor riders theoretically desiring eastbound 

circumferential movement would abandon the facility and use the direct bus lines. 

This volume has been conservatively established at 2,000, which is the same as 

the total number of bus riders initially diverted away from the Red Line. Based on 

this estimate of patronage loss (from the subject corridor only) , the ridership 

forecast for the crosstown radial/circumferential service is set at 13,000 riders 

from the five stations, or line volume north of Lower Roxbury Station. This line 

volume is in the upper range of reasonable estimates . 

Thus, Figure 2.6 shows that the line volume approaching Ruggles Street is made up i 

of 4,250 riders who actually prefer a left turn circumferential connection and j 

8,750 who are using the circumferential to approach a rapid transit station, and | 

complete their radial and east circumferential movements. ' I 

I 
I 
I 



82 



MNMAN SQUARE 



SOMERVILLE 



^ Ui-^-i ^ 



7 /J S/^TT^-^^t^ - ^E^"«"E 



EAST CAMBRIDGE 



CAHR FASTENER CO 

TATION 

ER 

■ADGER CO. 




BOSTON AND MAINE 
RAILROAD YARDS 



% 






V^-. 






*•"£ NORTH ^/-^ 



^^ CAMBRIDGE GATEWAY 



KENMORE SQUARE 



BROOK 

COTTAGE F; 






■9.W. AiTGim^ T j)fcmm no. 2 

Circumferential/Radial Alignment to 
Grove Hall vs. Completed Circumferential 
TO Red Line 



-MASS. MEDICAL COLLEGE 

MENTAL SCHOOL 

cInTER g^ufflA^fJ'^^ .^•"'mission HILL 
^^.V HOSPITAL^.^ HOUSINQ PROJECTS 

' • «» BAPTIST NEIGtfBORHOOD 
\y% HOSPITAL 



3RIGHAM CIRCLE 



PARKER HILL 

' " 3HBr — 



fjl^ 



^JBERTB. 

BRIQHAM 

HOSPITAL 



' -/I JAMAICA PLAIN 



Figure 2.7 




CIRCUMFERENi lAL CORRICPR DESCRIPTION 



83 



3__ Comparison of Benefit for Alignments East of Ruggles 

This section presents the comparative benefit to be derived from the BTPR 
circ\imferential alignment to South Station, and the "radial/circumferential" 
alternative, as presented in the SW report. The completed circumferential 
network includes a spur configuration to Dudley Square , and light rail 
service to Grove Hall. This base network is compared with the same network, 
but with the light rail truncated at Dudley, and the Dudley circumferential 
spur extended to Grove Hall. The user benefit of the new link is presented 
in terms of its role (1) in a circumferential-only system, and (2) in a 
full-core distribution system. : 

3.i Circumferential/Radial vs. Completed Circumferential 
Figure 2.7 describes the first comparison undertaken. The base system 
in this comparison is the BTPR circumferential to South Station with a 
Dudley spur. The policy question is raised: who would receive benefit 
and disbenefit from routing the facility instead to a Grove Hall terminus. 
The summary data is presented as Table 2.8. 

In the "completed circumferential" plan, downtown destined riders get direct 
light rail service from Warren Street stations. In the "radial-circumferential" 
alternative, downtown destined riders must take the new service to Ruggles 
Street and transfer inbound. Of the Warren Street users. Grove Hall downtown 
riders would get better travel times with the new service, while Walnut 
Street downtown riders would get worse travel times. Travel times are about 
equal for Martin Luther King boarders, while Dudley riders would continue 
to have light rail service. Thus, all radial Grove Hall riders appear in the 
benefit column of Table IIB.4,i., while Walnut radial riders appear in the 
disbenefit column. 

Those benefitting most obviously are the few riders from the three new stations 
destined for NW circumferential destinations. These riders no longer need 
await a trolley to take them to Dudley to board the circumferential 
distributor. The alternative routing saves them the waiting time for the 
trolley, and the slight speed advantage gained between Grove Hall and Dudley. 

The column for disbenefit caused by the radial/circumferential routing has 
two more important categories. Circimiferential riders from the NW who 
desired service to Boston City Hospital, Broadway and South Station are denied 
it, accounting for 5,600 one way riders. The replacement corridor itself 
attracts 5,000 riders who desire to use the facility to make a "right turn" 
and go to the deducted stations . Thus , the entire line volume westward from 
City Hospital station is entered in the disbenefit column. 

The summary statement which can be drawn from Table 2.8 is this: routing 

the facility in the "radial/circumferential" configuration would cause some 

level of disbenefit to 8570 more people than would derive any level of 

benefit from the facility. The ratio of those negatively impacted to those 

positively impacted is about 3.5:1. j 

It is reasonable to be concerned over the absolute value of positive and 
negative impacts, in addition to the number of riders in some impacted. A 
rough illustrative calculation of the level of impact is presented in 



84 



( 



TABLE 2.8 

Impact of Circumferential/Radial instead of Completed Circumferential 

Benefits from Grove Hall Terminal instead of South Station Terminal , 
including spur from Lower Roxbury to Dudley Station 

One-Way Riders One-Way Riders 

Type of Trips Who Receive Benefit Who Receive Disbenefit 

Trips desiring 

circumferential service 

between Ruggles & Boston 

City Hospital 2,000 



Trips desiring 

circumferential service 

between Ruggles & 

Broadway & South Station 3,600 



Trips from Replacement 

Corridor desiring "right 

turn" movement 5,000 



Trips from Walnut, Martin 600 

Luther King, & Grove Hall 1015 

Stations desiring "left 1035 
turn" movement 



Trips from Grove Hall to 
Radial Destinations 



Trips from Walnut Station 2,250 1,300 
to Radial Destinations 



3,330 11,900 



In sum, sending the circiomferential facility to Grove Hall would cause 
some level of disbenefit to 8,570 more people than it would cause some 
level of benefit. 



85 



TABLE 2.8a 



Approximate Weightings of Benefit Assigned to Table 2.B 
Impacts of Circumferential Radial Instead of Completed Circumferential 



Type of trips 



Approximate level of benefit 
in daily minutes of one-way 
travel 



Approximate level of 
disbenefit in daily minutes 
of one-way travel 



Trips desiring circum- 
ferential service 
between Ruggles & Boston 
City Hospital 



2,000 § 9 minutes = 18,000 



Trips desiring circum- 
ferential service 
between Ruggles and 
Broadway & South Station 



3,600 @ 11 minutes = 37,800 



Trips from Replacement 
Corridor desiring "right 
turn" movement 



5,000 @ "3" minutes = 15,000 



Trips from Walnut, Martin 
Luther King, Grove Hall 
Stations desiring "left 
turn" movement 



600 (a 9.5 = 9830 
1015 (9 8.5 = 8630 
1035 @ 8.0 = 4800 



Trips from Grove Hall to 
Radial Destinations 



2,250 @ 2.5 = 5625 



Trips from Walnut Station 
to Radial Destinations 



1,300 (a 2.5 minutes = 3250 



3,330 persons save 



11,900 persons lose 



28,885 



daily minutes 



74,050 

daily minutes 



86 



Table 2.8a. The data in the column "benefit" is accurate to the same 
degree as other sketch calculations in this analysis. The data presented 
as "disbenefit" is only illustrative in nature. Briefly, the new network 
routing taken by circumferential riders, to Boston City Hospital, Broadway, 
and South Station are not known. To provide some level of simulation, it 
was assumed that circumferential riders could use a bus from Lower Roxbury 
station to Boston City Hospital, and to Andrew. The additional time expended 
over this route has been used as a rough calculation of additional travel 
time spent with the truncated circumferential network. 

The travel times computed using the substituted bus link are used as an 
average travel time for all rerouted riders. The assumption is not made that 
all these riders would route themselves over the new bus link. 

A second calculation is included in Table 2.8a as a surrogate for the increased 
travel times for those with origins in the Replacement Corridor and 
destinations to the east having desire lines which would use the Grove Hall 
spur. With the "cross town only" routing option, none of these riders would 
board at the Warren Street tunnel stations. Rather they would have bus routes 
directly eastward into Dorchester. Again, their new travel times are 
unknown. A symbolic value of "three minutes" has been used to illustrate 
the idea that travel times have been increased, but only slightly. 

Table 2.8a, with its rough travel time calculations supports the conclusion 
that the absolute level of disbenefit far outweighs the level of benefit to 
be obtained by implementing the "radial/circumferential" concept in place 
of the "completed circumferential" concept. The ratio of absolute level of 
disbenefit to benefit is at least 2.5:1, 

3. ii Completed Circumferential with Dudley Spur vs. Completed 
Circumferential with Grove Hall Spur 

Figure 2.9 illustrates the decision being faced in this section. The central 
issue is whether the Warren corridor would be better served by the fast-feeder mode 
offered by a circumferential-in- tunnel service, or by the slower more intense 
coverage of a direct- to-downtown light rail line. However, it can well be argued 
that analyzing a Grove Hall tunnel only in terms of a circumferential spur ignores 
the potential of a Grove Hall tunnel which serves radial trips. Therefore, a second 
Summary Benefit Table is presented for the option of radial and circumferential 
service. 

Table 2,10 reveals that over 100,000 travel minutes would be saved by users of a 
Grove Hall spur beyond Dudley connected only to circumferential destinations. As 
noted earlier, radial riders from Grove Hall save about 2 1/2 minutes (one-way) 
while. Walnut Street radial users suffer a 2 1/2 minute service loss from deletion 
of the Light Rail Service. Martin Luther King radial users experience neither 
benefit nor disbenefit. : Grove Hall being a stronger station than Walnut Street, 
(more feeder bus routes) , the aggregate impact for Warren Street radial riders is 
positive, though modest at about 2,500 inbound minutes per day. 

It is the riders who (1) have directly circiimferential destinations and (2) have 
network destinations well served by use of the circumferential as the first transit 
mode who are the prime beneficiaries of a plan which replaces radial light rail 
with a spur-from-circvimferential seirvice. Roughly 50 percent of the external trips 
of the subject corridor are in this category. Over 50,000 daily minutes of inbound 
travel time are saved for this half of the market. 

S7 



sjf^ 




OMERVILLE TS^X gSilTPolS'^Y^AS'D*^''^ '^K^^>^W^/>f, 



EAST CAMBRIDGE, 

CARR FASTENER CO. ' 



/ 



TRANSPORTATION 
SYSTEMS CENTER 

BADGER CO. 



BRIDGE GATEWAY 



*''^ NORTH VV-, 
\ STATION Vk 



>^^«k 







I 



SOUTH^ 
ST ATI (f 









S.W. ALIGNMENT DFCISION NO. 3 
Circumferential Spur to Grove Hall vs. 
Radial Light Rail to Grove Hall with 
Circumferential Spur to Dudley Square 



IGHAM CIRCLE 






.-'-^TTi.-. 



^5Sf7K 



, f^ NENO PARKER HILL 

^\a BAPTIST NEIGHBORHOOD -^ 

\ \% HOSPITAL -P-* 

\-'\^ ". , ROBERTO 
-«'J»^. H BftlQHAM 
'#^V * HOSPITAL 

/^JAMAICA PLAIN 






Figure 2.9 




CIRCUMFEREN HAL CORR! 



TABLE 2.10 



Benefits of spur from the Circumferential Distributor to Grove Hall compared 
with spur to Dudley with Light Rail to Grove Hall 



Grove Hall circ 2250 
Grove Hall radial 2250 



@ 9.5=21375 
@ 2.5= 5625 



MLK Blvd. circ 2200 
MLK Blvd. radial 2200 



8.5=18700 
0=0 



Walnut 
Walnut 



cir 1300 
radial 1300 



(3 8.0=10400 
@-2.5=-3250 



Daily minutes saved for one way trips = 52,850 
Daily minutes saved for two way trips = 105,700 

$1,321,250 first year transport benefit. 

TABLE 2. 10a 
Benefits of spur from Circumferential and Downtown Distributor to Grove Hall 
Compared with spur to Dudley with Light Rail to Grove Hall 



Grove Hall circ 2250 
Grove Hall radial 2250 



(a 9.5=21375 
(a 9.5=21375 



MLK Blvd. circ 2200 
MLK Blvd. radial 2200 



@ 8.5=18700 
@ 8.5=18700 



Walnut 
Walnut 



circ 1300 
radial 1300 



@ 8.0=10400 
@ 8.0=10400 



Additional Riders to Grove Hall 1500 



@ 9.5=14250 



Daily minutes saved for one way trips = 



115,200 



Daily minutes saved for two way trips = 



230,400 



$2,880,000 first year transport benefit 



89 



Table 2.10 presents a summary of $1.3 million as the first year 

transport benefit to be derived from extending the Dudley spur to Grove Hall as 

part of the circiimferential. Calculations show that 7,400 feet of tunnel, with 

three stations would cost at least $30 million for a PRT, and considerably higher 
for conventional rapid transit. This scale of capital investment demands all 
possible planning to maximize the benefits which accrue from the investment. Table 
2.10a shows essentially the same calculations for the situation in which radial 
services are also provided. Daily minutes of travel time saved more than double, with 
resulting first year transport benefit rising to $2.88 million per year. 



4. Red Line Interchange for the Distributor 

Analysis to this point has established the absolute desirability of a Red Line 
connection for the southern end of the Circiimferential Distributor. There are two 
logical points at which to intercept Red Line users with circumferential destinations: 
Broadway and Andrew stations. Issues which lie behind the choice include the ease of 
early connection to the South Station transportation center beyond Broadway and the 
desirability of serving the University of Massachusetts, Boston campus with 
circumferential service (in addition to its present radial service,) beyond Andrew 
Station. 

In the short term, Andrew and Broadway stations have similar levels of benefit 
associated with each. Bus feeder services are moderately more important at 
Andrew than Broadway. Similarly the inbound- to-circumferential riders would save 
approximately one minute of travel time with the Andrew interchange. 

The case for a Broadway "mode-mixer" is inextricably bound to the longer teirm 
planning considerations for the distributor. The kind of distribution service 
designed for the "fringe-of-core" study area could logically be expanded to provide 
downtown coverage in addition. This concept is explored in Section F to follow. 
It suffices to note here that if the distribution facility does indeed have a future 
role in improving CBD distribution, Broadway station emerges as the single most 
strategically located interchange in full network, and the highest volume station. 
It is highly desirable for all available resources to be concentrated on facilitating 
the transfer movements through such a "mode mixer." Thus it would not be desirable 
to have ultimate interchanges at both Andrew and Broadway with light or moderate 
investment in each. Concentration of investment on one facility, possibly with 
cross-platform and "mezzanine" level transfer movements would be optimal. 

Concentrating resources on the interchange at Broadway does not, however, rule out 
the longer term desirability of constructing a spur service to University of Massa- 
chusetts Boston directly from the circumferential trunk in the vicinity of Boston 
City Hospital. With a day time population of 15,000, as many as 7,500 daily transit 
riders will be desiring good connections from the campus to the radial which approaches 
their destination. This represents a reasonable high estimate of University of Massa- 
chusetts riderships, based on a mode split to transit three times the present experience 
of Northeastern University. 

The circijmferential connection would primarily benefit those with destinations along the 
Southwest and Western radial services. In addition, direct connection to the South 
Shore line would be an extra benefit, as these vehicles do not stop at Columbia Station. 
These 2 1/2 radials represent 50 percent of transit users destinations (21 percent, 
20 percent and 1/2 of 21 percent) making about 3,500 daily potential benef claries. 
By saving one transfer (feeder to desired radial vs. feeder to Red Line to desired 
radial) and some line time, user benefits for the 3,500 would be significant. In 
addition, several thousand Columbia station boarders would receive benefit. 



90 



1 



The volume using the circumferential distributor to South Station is about 4,500, or 
roughly comparable to the upper range estimate for University of Massachusetts users. 
This preliminary analysis suggests that it is misleading to consider the issue as 
Broadway/South Station or Andrew/U. Mass., mutually exclusive options. Just as the 
spur concept has proven valid in earlier analysis of near term service to Dudley, and 
long term service to Central and Grove Hall, it is applicable in the case of University 
of Massachusetts Boston. 



This brief observation supports the concept that the near teirni shuttle mode 
from Columbia to University of Massachusetts should be selected with reference 
to longer term compatibility with the modal requirements of the circ\amferential 
distributor. The long term role for expanded core distribution services strongly 
mitigates in favor of a significant Broadway modal interchange investment for the near 
term distribution facility. Phrased as an either/or option, connectivity to the 
CBD via Broadway and South Station has vastly greater potential than a University 
of Massachusetts terminal for the facility. However, a University of Massachusetts 
spur into the circumferential trunk is clearly associated with user benefits high 
enough to justify further analysis. Immediate choice of mode for the shuttle should 
take this into consideration. 



91 



Section E Appendix 

Calculations for the Kenmore Loop Study 

The routing of Cambridge-bound circumferential riders over an alignment which serves 
Queensberry and Kenmore areas adds approximately 1.4 minutes of running time to 
the more direct alternative. There are approximately 5,000 riders who are going 
through this alignment with neither origin nor destination in the area. Thus, 
7,000 additional minutes a day are expended by this subset of riders with a one- 
way loop alignment through the area. 

Appendix Table 1 KENMORE LOOP STUDY 



Movement 



Benefits 



One-way Fenway to Boston University 
through trips 



Disbenefits 



5,000 trips (a 1.4 min, 



Subtotal: Disbenefit for Northbound Through Riders = 7,000 daily minutes 

It is the purpose of this alignment analysis to determine if rerouting the northbound 
alignment would result in a net increase in user benefit (i.e. , to overcome the 
7,000 minute disbenefit described above) and the magnitude of such surplus benefit. 
It must be reiterated at the outset of this exercise that "cost benefit analysis" 
is not being attempted here. The focus is purposefully on absolute benefits re- 
turned: this data is necessary before elaborate detailing of cost characteristics 
on the supply side is undertaken. 

There are two major categories of beneficiaries from a decision to build a Peter- 
borough/Kenmore loop: riders who receive superior transit connections at Kenmore 
Station, and walk-ins to the newly added stations. The first category of benefit 
reflects improved connectivity with the radial system, the second reflects an in- 
crease in the coverage of distribution services. 

In the first category, there is a major difference in the travel time benefits for 
the loop between riders approaching the subject area from the Green Line "trunk" 
to the east, and the Green Line "branches" to the west. The direct alignment 
intercepts the Green Line system at two out of the three branches, while the loop 
alternative intercepts the system in the trunk, where combined headways are 1/3 that 
of any branch service. 

Predictably enough, virtually all of the benefits in this category are experienced 
by riders transferring between the circumferential distributor and the trunk service 
to the east of Kenmore. Subject area transfer movements must be further disaggre- 
gated by direction of movement on the Distributor. In the base network, paths must 
be traced in terms of their destination. For example, riders from the Green Line 
east with Cambridge/Somerville destination use two routes in the base network. 
Examination of the physical alignments reveals that northbound routing via Fenway 
Station on the Riverside Line has less in-vehicle time. than routing via Boston 
University Station on the Commonwealth line, with about 1.2 minutes difference. 
However, it does not prove to be in the minumxim path for all riders making this 
transfer. 



92 



If the rider were to route himself through Fenway, he would board only Riverside 
trains at the beginning of his Green Line journey. With a 24-hour weighted headway 
of six minutes, he would endure 3 minutes waiting time, which is interpreted (by him) 
as 7.5 minutes of perceived travel time. Kenmore to Fenway is 1.7 minutes, with 
Fenway to BU 1.1 minutes. This makes a total of 10.3 perceived minutes of travel. 

Rather than experience the above, the transit rider takes either a Riverside car or 

a Commonwealth car. Now he waits through only 4.5 minutes of perceived travel time. 

On board, the Commonwealth car he rides for 4.0 minutes to the BU circumferential 

station. Fifty percent of the time he expends 8.5 minutes (via Commonwealth) and 

50 percent of the time he expends 7.3 minutes (via Riverside), for the links examined 

here. Thus, in the base network (with direct BU-Fenway Line) an average time of 

7.9 minutes is recorded for the Green Line to circumferential North transfer movement. 

The proposed loop would improve both in-vehicle time and excess (waiting) time for 
this movement. The Distributor would run from Kenmore to BU Station in the tunnel 
in 1.4 minutes, never exceeding its 30 mph speed. The streetcar takes approximately 
four minutes because of heavily used street crossings and an intermediate station. 
Because the Green/Distributor transfer movement would take place at Kenmore, the 
Green Line boarder would enjoy a 2 minute headway, or 2.5 minutes of perceived time. 
Implementation of the Kenmore loop would improve the east-north transfer movement 
by 3.4 minutes per outbound trip. BTPR trip tables for the circvraiferential dis- 
tributor show 1,085 trips in this category. (If the facility does not go to Somerville 
and Sullivan, approximately 500 trips must be subtracted) . 

The Green East to Distributor South movement is similar to that described above. 
In the base system, all transfers occur at Fenway Station. With the addition of the 
loop, transfers occur at two locations. Those approaching Kenmore on Beacon or 
Commonwealth trains transfer to the Distributor at Kenmore. Those already on board 
can enjoy an extra minute's time savings by transferring at Fenway. (Kenmore trans- 
fers take longer because the one-way loop is routed around BU before heading south 
to Fenway) . In the loop system all riders transferring south benefit from the low 
composite headway derived from the option of taking the first Kenmore train. In the 
base system, 7.5 perceived minutes are spent waiting for a Riverside car with 1.7 
minutes spent on vehicle — (9.2 minutes). One-third of the riders spend perceived 
minutes waiting and 1.7 minutes between Kenmore and Fenway (-4.2 minutes). However, 
two- thirds spend 2.5 perceived minutes waiting, and then spend 2.5 minutes on the 
one-way loop of the distributor to Fenway Station (for 5.0 minutes)-. Thus, a new 
weighted average of travel time, at 4.73 represents 4.7 minutes of savings for the 
group attributable to the Kenmore loop. The BTPR projection for East/South transfers 
in one direction is 2,360. 

As stated above, these approaching the act of transfer from Green branches of the 
west have less to gain from the addition of a Kenmore loop. Simply stated, there 
exists a trade-off between improving Beacon Street transfer movements with a direct 
Kenmore connection, and impairing service to BU and Fenway by routing it first 
around the one-way loop. 

An extensive exercise in tracing the paths of all transfers from the Green Line 
branches to the circumferential distributor can be summarized in the table below. 
The table reveals that the one-way loop is a mixed blessing for Brookline, Brighton 
and Newton light rail users with circumferential destinations. The benefits, however, 
are clearly non-negative. 



93 



Movement 



Appendix Table 2 
Benefit 



Riverside to North 
Riverside from South 
Commonwealth from South 
Beacon to North 
Beacon to South 
Beacon from North 
Beacon from South 



240 trips @ 3.1 min. 
530 trips 2.6 min. 
240 trips (a 2.6 min. 
530 trips (§2.6 min. 
+4,180 



Disbenefit 

400 trips (3 1.4 min. 
530 trips (3 3.4 min. 
680 trips (3 2.0 min. 



-3,660 



Total benefit for Green Line Branch Riders = 520 daily minutes. 

The market segment most dramatically benefitted by a Kenmore loop consists of those 
who could now directly walk in to services that were not previously available. When 
the intensity of distribution coverage of the circumferential facility is improved 
by the addition of two new stations, it is the subset of riders wi1:h trip-ends 
within walking distance of the stations which benefits most of all. 

Approximately 4,000 riders are projected to board the circumferential facility at the 
Peterborough Street Station. It is approximately 2,400 feet to both Kenmore Square or 
Fenway Stations from the location of the proposed station. The walking time to either 
Green Line Station is above 8 minutes. The area is served by one feeder bus to 
Auditori\im Station, which has relatively long headways, with access time to express 
transit considerably above unweighted walking time. 

Examination of unassigned trip tables reveals that just about 50 percent of "Fens" 
riders would be best served by Green Line service, with 50 percent either best or 
equally well served by the circumferential distributor. Clearly, in the base network 
(BU-Fenway direct) , there is a major pattern of walk-ins to both Fenway and Kenmore 
Stations from the subject area. Because total perceived time by feeder bus is re- 
corded as higher than walking times, the average access time to a Green Line station 
can be conservatively estimated at eight minutes. 

For 50 percent of these riders, a long walk (or infrequent feeder bus) to a Green Line 
Station has been replaced by automated feeder service of the highest quality. For 
these people an eight minute access time is replaced by a distributor trip of be- 
tween two and three minutes. This travel time savings is between five and six minutes. 
The more conservative 5 minute figure will be used in the sketch evaluation which 
follows. This implies a headway of 3.2 minutes which is quite high for systems of small 
vehicle operated in the manner being explored by BTPR. 

For the other half of Peterborough Station boarders, the new service represents 
more than an improved feeder mechanism to Kenmore. For many of these riders, the 
Distributor will provide direct to destination service. The only benefit, however, 
which can be ascribed to the new loop station is the eliminated walking time minus 
small increases in vehicle running time. These riders would no longer have to walk 
to Fenway to board the distributor. This time savings is estimated at 8 minutes: 
in vehicle times over the loop configuration would be 3.1 minutes longer than vehicle 
times from Fenway for those going south, and 2.4 minutes longer for trips going north. 
The resulting pertrip savings of 4.9 minutes and 5.6 minutes north are reported in 
Table 3. 



94 



Appendix Table 3 



Tri 



£S_ 



Peterborough to Kenmore 

Peterborough to Cambridge/Somerville 

Peterborough to Fenway + South 

Kenmore to Peterborough 

Cambridge + Somerville to Peterborough 

Fenway + South to Peterborough 

Subtotal Benefit to Peterborough St. Boarders 



Benefits 

2,000 trips (a 5.0 min. 

600 trips @ 5.6 min. 
1,400 trips (§4.9 min. 
2,000 trips (3 3.0 min. 

600 trips (3 6.9 min. 
1,400 trips (3 7.7 min, 
= 41,140 daily minutes 



Disbenefits 



"Walk-ins" to Kenmore Station (which includes a few feeder bus patrons who did not 
get intercepted at Deaconess on Brookline Avenue or Boston University on Commonwealth) 
have been estimated by BTPR to comprise 1,000 of the 6,000 plus riders projected to 
board the circumferential distributor at Kenmore Station. In the base network, (with 
a direct BU-Fenway connection) pedestrians in the Kenmore area must board Green Line 
transit to Fenway and Boston University distributor stations. The rationale for 
the choice of transfer point is the same as described above for those boarding Green 
Line vehicles at Auditorium beyond. There is a significant difference, however. A 
Kenmore interconnection for those riders reduced Green Line headway to two minutes, 
or 2.5 minutes of perceived travel times. A Kenmore connection for these riders 
reduces their Green Line headway to zero, as they board the distributor directly. 
Thus, walk-ins to Kenmore save 2.5 minutes more than riders to Auditoriiom and beyond 
for every movement. The s\ammary of this analysis appears as Table 2.2 in the text 
of this report. 



TRIPS 



Appendix Table 4 KENMORE LOOP STUDY 

BENEFITS 



DISBENEFITS 



Kenmore Walk-Ins to Cambridge + 
. Somerville 



300 trips @ 5.9 min. 
1770 min. 



Kenmore Walk- Ins to Fenway + 
South 



700 trips @ 6.0 min. = 
4200 min. 



Cambridge + Somerville to Kenmore 
Pedestrian 



300 trips (3 7.5 min. = 
2250 min. 



Fenway + South to Kenmore 
Pedestrian 



700 trips (3 7.5 min. = 
5250 min. 



Subtotal: Benefit for Kenmore Pedestrians with Circiamferential Destinations= 13,470 min. 



95 



Appendix Table 5 



TRIP DESCRIPTION 



BENEFIT 



DISBENEFIT 



B. 1:1 

Northbound Trips Through Study Area 

B. 1:2 

Between Auditorium and Distributor 

B. 1:3 

From Riverside - North 
From Riverside - South 
From Commonwealth - South 

Between Beacon + Distributor 

B. 1:4 Pedestrians 

To + From Peterborough Street 

Station 

B. 1:5 

Pedestrians To + From Kenmore Station 

Subtotals 

Final 



31,460 Daily Minutes 



4,180 Daily Minutes 
41,140 Daily Minutes 

13,470 Daily Minutes 

90,250 Daily Minutes 
79,590 



7,000 Daily Minutes i 



3,660 Daily Minutes 



10,660 Daily Minutes 



First Year Estimated Transport Benefit From Addition of Kenmore Loop = $994,875 



96 



F. NETWORK ANALYSIS AND LONGER TERM PLANNING 

The previous section of the Circiomferential Report was concerned with the 
demand by subarea for improved core distribution services, and the alignment 
segments proposed in response to the revealed demand. This section addresses 
the role of alternative networks based on the analysis by segment of Section 
E. 

1. Description of Networks 

Through the work program of Study Element Six, the BTPR has analyzed the 
transport implicationsof alternative levels of transit investment in each 
of the study corridor. The work program covering supplemental core distribu- 
tion services has included extensive computerized network testing of four 
major alternative systems. The four networks include: 

1. A "moderate base" 1980 transit network. This network, against which all 
options are compared, includes rapid transit extensions to Braintree, Needham, 
Alewife via Davis and Oak Grove; improved commuter rail and extensive express 
buses, but with no_ circumferential investment. 

2. A "moderate base" system plus a circumferential facility from South Station 
clockwise to Kendall Square. (The "partial circumferential" option.) 

3. The same system, extended to Union and Sullivan Squares, via the Grand Junction 
alignment. (The "full circumferential" option.) 

4. A moderate base transit system, upon which an extensive core distribution 
network has imposed. This network and the operating data used to simulate 
its service is documented in a separate BTPR Technical Paper. "The Core 
Distributor," as it is referred to in the text includes the full circumferential 
alignment, with spur services to Central Square, to Grove Hall, to the 
Airport, and a downtown distribution segment. 

The Core Distributor represents a reasonable upper limit to possible transit 
investment in the core area. Logically enough, certain links have more probability 
of implementation than others: it is the principle purpose of this section of 
the report to observe the levels of transport benefit attributable to successive 
increments of an improved transit core distribution network, 

2. Analysis of Alternative Network Performance 

Table 1. 1 presents the capsule siimmary of the findings of BTPR's examination of 
the transport implications of the options available. The first year user benefit 
to be derived from the partial circumferential has been calculated at more than 
$15,000,000. The facility would be used by over 60,000 trip makers per day, of 
whom 11,000 have been diverted from auto trips solely because of the incremental 
investment in the facility. Half of the new 11,000 trips start along the transit 
radials of the base network, and half have both origin and destination in the 
circumferential study area. 

Well over 70,000 trip makers would use the full circumferential facility if 
routed to Sullivan Square, with service to the Union Square area. The magnitude 
of ridership over the 70,000 figure depends on several variables, including the 
option of providing a Commuter Rail transfer point at Sullivan station. The 
figure represents the conservative projection, and does not assume a transfer 



97 




-■ — - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 
— - RAPID TRANSIT 
COMMUTER RAIL 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



r 



BTPR PARTIAL CIRCUMFERENTIAL 



1200 



2400 



4800 FEET 




98 




CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIODR 



BTPR FULL CORE DISTRIBUTOR 



99 



TABLE I.l 



SUMMARY OF THREE NETWORKS 



Partial Full 

Circ\imferential Circumferential 



1. Patronage 

2. New to transit 

3 . Annual User Benefit 

4. Number Hours/Day 

5. Accidents Saved 



63,000 

11,000 

$15,135,000 

20 ,130 

Less than 
100 



70,000 

(12,000 est.) 

($16,815,000 est.) 

(22,300 est.) 
not calculated 



Full Core 
Distributor 

225,000 

30,000 

$46,460,000 

61,949 

"200" 



lOO 



facility. Induced ridership and user benefits have been estimated based on 
factors established in the "partial circumferential" network. The full circiim- 
ferential facility was tested as part of the heavy investment studies of the 
northwest and southwest corridors . Separate, computations were not made to deter- 
mine that portion of the transport benefit specifically attributable to the 
facility. The data as presented, however, is fully compatible with assumptions 
of the other two networks . 

The full Core Distributor would carry 225,000 trips per day as part of a 1985 
transit network, 30,000 of which are diverted from auto usage. The first year 
transport benefit of the investment has been computed at $46,000,000. This 
calculation, based on time saving benefits to users alone , (no accident, or 
externality calculations) is higher than the first year transportation benefit 
for the 4 lane southwest expressway and 6 lane third harbor tunnel combined. 
1_22.7 million and 20.0 million vs. 46.46 million.J 

These calculations, it must be noted, represent the benefits that, were 
determined to be attainable from a very heavy investment in a high performance 
network. The network loadings for the three networks are shown below in 
Figures 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. 



Network Implications of Core Distribution Improvement 



The BTPR technical work program for transit has placed high emphasis on alternative 
strategies for maximizing the role of transit and facilitating radial flows to 
the core area. A technical approach which relied primarily on capital inten- 
sive investment far into the sxiburban areas was questioned early in the study. 
An alternative capital investment strategy was hypothesized in which radial transit 
services were enhanced by exceptionally high quality distribution services by 
some supplemental mode. This section presents the results of policy oriented 
tests undertaken with respect to this hypothesis. Briefly summarized, a wide 
variety of impacts were revealed, basically a function of the magnitude of distri- 
bution deficiency of the radial facility involved. Consistently in the tests, 
the Red line demonstrated a susceptibility to service improvement, while the 
Orange line was uninfluenced. 

3 . 1 Impact on Rapid Transit 

Figures la and lb show the impact of the Partial Circumferential and the Core 
Distributor on radial volumes just outside of the point of interchange with the 
supplementary mode. Examining the impact of the full core distributor one major 
pattern is discernible. The impact of the new system on the radial is determined 
by the general rise in transit usage to the core, which averages about 4% in the 
served area, counterbalanced by the tendency for feeder bus patrons to route 
themselves directly to Core Distributor stations, by passing the radial transit 
line. Thus, the stations of the Ashmont line lose 11% of their inbound volimie 
to the new Dudley-Grove Hall stations, while the stations. of the Quincy exten- 
sion experience a healthy 7.5% increase in inbound ridership. 

As noted, ridership increases reflect the distribution problems of the corridor 
radial. Blue line volumes coming into Logan station rise by 5.7% when provided 
with improved distribution to South Station and Back Bay areas. 



101 



'^^""- -INMAN SQUARE » i / OWlVlcn VIl-l-C 



BOSTON AND MAINE 
RAILROAD YARDS 









7^ 
>.^s._ V ^* CENTRAL 



' >v\ ■ ^v SQUARE 



WASHINGTON 
ELMS AND 
NEWTOWNE 
COURT 
HOUSING 



AMERICAN 
nrr tritp nr» 



7.400 



CARR FASTENER CO. 



JPORTATION 
MS CENTER 



^"S, NORTH <r<- 
\ STATION V^ 



I LIC'nXN;' ,**«,« projects squai / "^Z~^ badger co. .a^^wl 

><\VV<V^/V>^, POLAROIDCOrT 7/-- --i^'MBRIDGE GATEWAY 'v | 

^^S<^^|ir- NEWENGM..^ , """" .I™m . 

^/>1 >V \fxV^ ■'--■*■. ■ j^ jf] ,»kO^ :. V • ^^ 



CAMBRIDGEPORT 




5.4 



o3 




K 5.130 



BROOKLIK \ ^°''«~i,7;^--*(i ^-\^ 

COTTAGE FAnJi \ , .^^ 
NEIQHBORHOOj ^O***' / 



8.130 



.s^: 



f!« 



aSi- 



.00.000 



^' 8.700 

*/N.ENG. 



FENWAY AREA 



SOUTH END 





^ CATHEDRAL 



f V> >WB«IGHAM CIRCLE 

^ \ * N.ENQ. PARKER HILL 

>■ •«» BAPTIST NEIGHBORHOOD 
,\ V^ HOSPITAL 



VvWER 



Jr-.'ERBELT 



ROXSE, . 

CAMDEN AND j/ 
LENOX ST. y 
HOUSING y 
PROJECTS^ 



BOSTON 
UNIVER! 
MEDICAL J- 7 
CENTEC|^,.<A/'^ 

BOSTON CITV'^^i.i^^ 
HOSPITAL-^^'i,*^ 



7.700 



BROADWAY 
°l HOUSING 
C I PROJECT 



/^ 



gOBERT B. 
RIGHAM 
HOSPITAL 






8.840 r^7 

CAMPUS HIGH \ ^ ^ -ri /^ 

URBAN RENEWAL ,^. ^ J U<^ 

/ f f / 

^ / iSWii ".RRD PARK 
■^ ■i'^OUSING PROJECT 




NEW 
BOSTON 

FOOD markets! 
51 



ii 

o. 



z 



dudley^sCij-Sre 
roxbijry highlands 



' ,^ JAMAICA PLAIN 

r ^ . 

I 

'V'" 

i 




y? 



1/ 



S .as-^"" V 






AfASHINGTON 
PARK URBAN 
RENEWALAREA 



KEY 



i /SOUTH 

/boston 



V^-^' 



/ ROXBURY 



LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 

RAPID TRANSIT 

■ COMMUTER RAIL 



/* 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



BTPR PARTIAL CIRCUilFERENTIAL 

SELECTED LINE VOLUMES 

102 



' ^r>~-^' a •^ 



1200 



2400 



4800 FEET 




• INMAN SQUARE ' "' 




2.500 




BOSTON ANO MAINE 
RAILROAD YARDS 



5^000 

4l4X'*f-~»-ECHMERE 



,<*■ CENTRAL 
■ ^^ SQUARE 



A ^/"V' SIMPLEX 

bAMBRIDGEPORT ^^ 



WASHINGTON 

ELMS AND 

NEWTOWNE 

COURT 

HOUSING TECHN. .^ 

PROJECTS SQUAr / 

~ L in, 






c ■ - — ., 

EAST CAMBRIDGE 

CARR FASTENER CO. 

RANSPORTATION 
■ "TEMS CENTER 

BADGER CO. 

ALLSCy "' 






'^ NORTH V> 






■■'■^, \ STATION \^ 



9rr\r\ -——^-sambridgegateway 
jbUu 





II 

■ / N 



t I 



._ , 

. / 



SOUTH ''.y 

STATK — ' 



COTTAGE FAR;, 
'NEIGHBORHOd 




.-•*" 



SOUTH // / 

4.450 



.. I BOSTON--?// 
5 / HERALD- // ' 

, ^y TRAVELER / / / 



FENWAY AREA 



^ 

<* 



MUSEUM OF ^'''oS^' .■ 
FINE ARTS ..^' aOS^*^ .'•'' 




SOUTH END 



^ CATHEDRAL 




GILETTECO. 



ROXSE, < 

CAMDEN AND .^ 
LENOX ST. .' 
HOUSING .' 
PROJECTS y' 

/ 
/ 



7.700 






%« 'N.ENQ. PARKER HILL 
I •». n-KWi- "='13(TbORH000 



•4 V^ BAPTIST NEIG 
:\ V^ HOSPITAL 

V»«9 O ROBERTS. 

.>,,^. BftlGHAM 

'*? \ ".HOSPITAL 

^•^f§ JAMAICA PLAIN 
I 






CAMPUS HIGH "^ 

URBAN RENEWAL / 
AREA '^ 



>l ^^^'JrHOUSll 
DUDLEYysCUi^E 




-J 'BROADWAY 
gl HOUSING 
tt I PROJECT 

il 



S! 



. HCHAROPARK 
HOUSING PROJECT 



w- ROXBURY HIGHLANDS ROXBURY 

^.- MUNICIPAL 

5^f ^% CENTER 

^/ \X^' ■■ 






NEW 

BOSTON ij, 

FOOD markets! 

<| 
I 

! 



/ SOUTH 

/boston 



f 



£7 






WASHINGTON 
PARK URBAN 
RENEWAL AREA 



KEY 



xi 



ROXBURY 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRIDOR 



-• — - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT 
---- RAPID TRANSIT 
COMMUTER RAIL 






BTPR FULL CIRCUMFERENTIAL FACILITY 
SELECTED LINE VOLUMES 103 



1200 2400 



4800 FEET 





n.300 



7.600 



i^'f^Z 



"Vs\"- ^^ SQUARE 



13.20Cr-"-^^ 
^^1^ 7.600 



bAMBRIDGEPORT ^'^^ 



WASHINGTON biTtF fco 
ELMSAND 7 ^ 

NEWTOWNE /'~?\ / 

COURT ( /■*> /-sU^SANSPORTATION 

SSJ^^i'll^c Ttferr. ^d^^^iilMS CENTER 
PROJECTS SQUA / ^ ^V\ BADGER CO 

3ALLS0I 




24.200 



14.700 

■ V^, BOSl ^''***^"^ 

BROOKLll ^^^^-^^^^ 






RIGHAM 



./ '^ HOSPITAL 

[y^ JAMAICA PLAIN 

' WAX'-. \ - - 




COTTAGE FAR 
NEIOHBORHOO 

f FENWAY AREA 

:::., 23.000. 

'i«'nl»{?riN/^jl^A^kl. CoL'bi?^ MUSEUM OF 

#/ BSsp°t7 /?^<?SW'fAL XXfInE ARTS... 

/ ,-m.OREN'S QAFj.. 'Svj, • ' 

I .,^y >rf03PITAL ppsTON '""^. i>C 

'MA88\\»;PfgMGE^>ENTV;D,-Ss<^.-'" 
MENTAlX -.(THOOL .^ y1 INSTITUTE ^ST'S^ 

HEALTH pi. >«ewT ..f^ >^ \;^ 

CENTER g||', ^'<\,^;^,^SION HILL -J^ On COO 

■.:,. H0Si^^w^«**^H0USINQ PROJECTS / * ZU.bUU 

t/j-' ^>6ffilGHAMCIfl" " 

% ■ 'y>-^.j 

^'Xl. N.ENG. PARKER HILL Q, 

^ i», BAPTIST NEIGHBORHOOD ^/ 
A.*'^ HOSPITAL •£>■' 



CIRCUMFERENTIAL CORRlfi OR 



BTPR FULL CORE DISTRIBUTOR 

SELECTED LINE VOLUMES 



By contrast to the Blue line increase and the South Shore line rise, the 
Haymarket North extension registers less than 1 percent increase, even with 
excellent connections to the distributor. Clearly, the superlative downtovm 
distribution services of the Orange Line need no help from a supplemental 
mode: the insensitivity to "crosstown" improvement is more difficult to 
explain. 

3.2. Impact on Light Rail 

The Green Line branches show slight increases in boardings in zones where 
no competition exists from feeder bus services which interface directly with 
the distribution network, but minor losses in the inner areas. The 
Commonwealth line loses riders to Central Square buses, while the Riverside 
line no longer serves to distribute to the Longwood station area of the 
Fenway. Brigham Circle grows in importance for those with origins along 
the important Harvard Street circumferential feeder bus . What is revealed 
in the inner Green line service areas as well as in southwest and southeast 
services, is a tendency for "feeding" transit riders to link directly with 
the best available feeder services. This implies that a high design 
priority should be placed on the distribution network reaching the major 
inner-city feeder bus modes. 

3.3 Summary Impact on Radial Transit 

The impact of improved distribution (circumferential and otherwise) on the 
ridership of the existing transit plant is complex. Essentially, it can be 
summarized as a rise in Rapid Transit ridership outside of the core area, 
mixed results on the boarder of the study area (depending on bus competition 
as noted above) and a sharp decline in RT usage within the core area. This 
is a major area for further engineering analysis. Preliminary observations 
suggest that increases in line voliames external to the peak point, with 
decreases in line volume at the critical (potentially overcrowded) central 
junctures is a positive phenomenon. However, the extent to which this 
competition with the most central lines actually results in service redundancy 
must be carefully docximented. Table 1.5 below shows the impact of the 
Partial Circumferential and the Core Distributor on rapid transit boardings 
(includes streetcars) . It should be emphasized that these PT boardings 
represent un-linked trips, and total tripmaking on the system. 

TABLE 1.5 
RAPID TRANSIT BOARDINGS 

Base Partial Core Distributor 

626,922 610,784 473,951 



105 



3.4. Impact on Commuter Rail 

The commuter rail lines also display varying propensity for ridership increase. 
In the Northwest, the New Hampshire division was tested for sensitivity to core distri- 
bution change. The North Station location for the core distributor were coded to 
simulate direct service to the platforms of the commuter rail lines. In addition, 
a transfer point was simulated at Washington Street in Somerville, allowing very 
direct service to Cambridge, and the Kenmore/Fenway areas. Ridership on the line 
rose 25% because of the improved network connections. This is particularly signifi- 
cant when compared with the results of the North-South Station commuter rail 
study, where New Hampshire division ridership grew by about 21%. The magnitude of 

difference is not great, but the data is sufficient to suggest that there are 
alternate strategies to distribution investments which would benefit only com- 
muter rail riders. By way of illustration, one way line volume south of State 
Street station is 4, SCO for the Commuter rail tunnel, vs. 24,000 for the Core 
Distributor. 

Unfortunately, this kind of data is less available for CRR lines to the south. 
The decision was made not to code a Ruggles Street transfer facility, but to 
allow it to occur at Back Bay. However, the station was subsequently coded 
several hundred feet from the commuter rail platforms , by the Boston Public 
Library, and no increase in ridership occurred. The results of the North- 
South station rail tunnel analysis suggest that the CRR lines to the southwest 
are considerably less sensitive to distribution improvement than the lines 
serving North Station. 

The impact of investment for improved distribution can by no means be evaluated 
solely in terms of movements into the core from the hinterlands . Were that 
the only perspective, investments which favor only longer distance commutation 
would appear relatively more desirable. Rather, the benefits of core-intensive 
distribution are revealed to be rather evenly divided between complementary 
services for radial commuters , and services which accurately reflect the complex 
travel movements of inner-city residents. To illustrate this even division, 
the Partial Circumferential facility generates a total of 10,200 new transit 
trips. Manual examination of radial volumes isolates about 5,300 new trips 
from origins outside the core area. The rest have been generated with both 
origin and destination in the core area itself. 

In short, the analyses undertaken have confirmed the initial concept that a cir- 
cumferential distributor carefully tied into the radial system would have a bene- 
ficial impact on a cross-section of ridership categories. At the same time the 
data also reveals a certain level of ridership insensitivity , or at least a lack 
of a truly dramatic ridership elasticity with respect to improved connections. 
The partial circumferential facility raises South Shore ridership by 3.3%, while 
NV? Red line volumes increase by 4%. Other than these two corridors, there is 
little visible change in inbound corridor movements. Increases in full network 
inbound movements can be isolated (more than 2,500 of them, one-way) but a 
massive diversion from auto usage is not in evidence. In the following section 
the evaluative index shifts away from auto-diversion to user benefit. For an 
area with considerable "captive" and "captive-by-choice" travel, user benefits 
are the most equitable manner to observe the effectiveness of transit performance. 



106 



F. PART TWO: Regional Distribution of User Benefit 



It is the piirpose of this section of the network analysis to describe 
the way in which the benefits from intensive investment in distribution 
service are distributed throughout the s;ibareas of the core study area, 
and throughout the region itself. The subject of this section is improve- 
ment in distribution services through capital invesmtnet: two possible 
levels of capital investment are thoroughly documented to illustrate 
the range of possible impacts. These two facilities are the BTPR Partial 
Circumferential facility, and the Full Core Distributor. Reference is 
made to other levels of investment, but the data is concentrated on 
results of network tests of these two options. 



II A. Examination of Benefit Distribution for Geographic Bias 

Intensive investment in distribution seirvices over a relatively small 
landmass must be seen in te3ans of its regional, network, implications rather 
than its immediate local impacts. Too narrow a geographic focus inevitably 
results in a misconception of the true function of the proposed facility 
in the total system of metropolitan transportation. Specifically, it is 
easy to interpret the Partial Circumferential, for example, as a system 
with which to transport doctors from Boston City Hospital to Beth Israel - 
students from Boston University to MIT, or working people from the South 
End to Cambridgeports ' industrial complex. Of course, the facility does 
all this: but the handling of trips within the circ\amferential arc is 
by no means its principle transportation functions , nor the manner in which 
it retxirns principle benefits to its users. 

In order to illustrate the spreading of benefits over the geographical 
area, two critical questions are asked here: 1) Is the proposed circvim- 
ferential facility primarily of benefit to the communities it directly 
serves? 2) Is the proposed circumferential (or the Full Core Distributor) 
primarily of benefit to core area communities, or to the communities lying 
beyond the core area? The data quite clearly resolves the first issue, 
and serves to dismiss the preconception that the facility is primarily 
a link between institutions. Table II-l disaggregates the total annual 
user benefit derived from the Partial Circiomf erential into four categories : 



Table II-l 
Transport Benefit by Trip Category: The Partial Circumferential 
(expressed in dollars of first year transport benefit) 

Trips within Circ . Corridor $2.6 million 

Trips between Circ. Corridor and CBD $1.4 million 

Trips between Circ. Corridor and Region $10'. 1 million 

Trips external to Core $.5 million 

$14.6 million 



107 



Of the $14.6 of user benefit from trips included in the computerized 
analysis (about 95% of all trips) only $2.6 million derives from simple 
cross town movements. The vast majority of benefit is created for users 
with regional connections. The conception of the circumferential as 
interconnector of universities is easily dispelled. However a second 
serious question remains: does investment in distribution services 
(such as the partial circumferential) primarily benefit the residents 
of a relatively small segment of the region, failing to return benefit 
to the majority of communities who must inevitably share in the region's 
transit costs? The question is posed for both the Partial Circumferential 
and the Full Core Distributor. 



Table II-2 



Geographic Distribution of Benefit from Partial Circumferential 
(expressed in dollars of first year transport benefit) 

Benefit generated by: 

Trips Originating in Core $9.4 million 

Trips Originating in Rest of Region $5.2 million 

$14.6 million 

**** ***** ****** 

Benefit generated by: 

Trips from Region to Core $4.7 million 

Trips from Core to Region $4.7 million 

Trips within Core $4.7 million 

Trips external to Core .$.5 million 

$14.6 million 

**** ***** ****** 

Benefit to Core Area Residents: 



13% of travel between core and region $1.2 million 

Travel within the core area $4.7 million 

$5.9 million 
Benefit to Residents external to Core 

_87 % of travel between Core and region $8.2 million 

Trips external to Core area $ . 5 million 

$8.7 million 

Total $14.6 million 



The transport benefits accrued from the Partial Circumferential investment 
are not distributed disproportionately to the residents of the communities 
where the facility operates: benefits are distributed evenly over the transit- 
using region. This stems, of course, from the distinctly regional nature of 
the trip ends served by the Partial Circumferential transit line: from their 
propensity to be destinations of home based trips. Exemplary of this is the 
87 percentage factor used in the final step of Table 11-2, showing the 
portion of core/region tripmakers who are commuting inward for their home 
based trip, based on directional flows on rapid transit crossing the cordon line. 



108 



Table II-3 

Geographic Distribution of Benefit from the Full Core Distributor 
(expressed in dollars of first year transport/benefit) 

Benefit generated by 

Trips Originating in Core $24.9 million 

Trips Originating in Rest of Region $18.7 million 

$43.6 million 

**** ***** ****** 

Benefit generated by 

Trips from Region to Core $13 . 2 million 

Trips from Core to Region $13 . 2 million 

Trips within Core $11.7 million 

Trips external to Core $5.5 million 

$43.6 million 

**** ***** ****** 

Benefit to Core Area Residents 

13 % of Core/Region Travel $3.4 million 

Trips within Core $ 11. 7 million 

$15.1 million 

Benefit to Residents external to Core 

RJ % of Core/Region Travel $23.0 million 

Trips external to Core $ 5.5 million 

$28.5 million 
Total $43.6 million 



In brief, the Full Core Distributor acts much as the Partial Circumferential 
in terms of the dispersal of its benefit over a significant cross section of 
tripmakers. The essential observation is the extent to which the transport 
benefits accrue from regional interchanges. Considerably more detail is 
necessary to gain insight into the distribution of benefits over the commun- 
ities of the region, and the subareas of the study (core) area itself. This 
is presented in Section II-B. 



II-B Detailed Description of Benefit Distribution 

The data presented to this point strongly supports the concept of high 
priority investment for core distribution services. The critical planning 
issue is not one of ultimate desirability, but rather one of staging incre- 
ments of investment over time in order to achieve optimal return on the 
public investment. The disaggregated data of user benefit presented in this 



109 



section is organized in support of the critical staging decisions that 
must soon be made, as planning for distribution improvements moves into 
the engineering and design stages. Of highest importance is data showing 
relative impact of investment in the several aubareas of the Core study 
area. 

In order for planning and design to proceed in the study area, some pre- 
liminary determinations of priority must be established. The actual setting 
of these priorities will involve a variety of criteria, with dimensions of 
social, economic and political values taken into consideration. The role 
of this preliminary study is to present data based on one single criterion: 
the potential for the study area to derive significant levels of benefit 
from investment in core distribution facilities. The data presented in 
the following two tables comprises the base information for this initial 
determination of priority. It provides information 

with which to make judgements between downtown distribution investment 
and circumferential distribution investment; between distribution and line 
haul investment. 

Table I 1-4 shows the magnitude of user benefit generated by the Full Core 
Distributor, organized by the district of origin of the trip. Table II-5 
presents the same data for the Partial Circumferential facility. From these 
two tables are drawn the capsule siimmaries included in the discussion below. 

The level of user benefit generated for the subareas must be presented in two 

ways. First, absolute magnitude of benefit must be noted for each subarea: 

bringing a given level of service improvement to a large group of users 

should have higher priority than bringing that level of service improvement 

to a small group of users. Second, average benefit per transit user must 

be noted. Because of the major discrepancy in district size, an index must 

be available to reveal serious service deficiencies (and potential for improvement) 

in smaller zones. Any setting of priority between subareas must refer to 

both indices of benefit. Table II-6, below, presents a summary ranking of 

the subareas by level of user benefit accrued from each of the two facilities. 

Certain conclusions can be immediately drawn from the rankings of Table II-6. 
The two subareas, BU/Kenmore and Inner Cambridge represent the highest priority 
areas for improved distribution services: this statement holds true for either 
index of benefit (absolute magnitude, or average per transit user) , and for 
either the Partial Circumferential or the Full Core Distributor. The suscep- 
tibility of the BU/Kenmore area to service amelioration from the Partial Cir- 
cumferential is particularly relevant. Trips with origins in this area increase 
their user benefit by $2.5 million from the addition of the Partial Circumferential. 



110 



However, when analyzed in terms of benefit per total transit ricer, or even 
benefit per actual rider of the distributor, the CBD segments drop out of 
the top ten ranking subareas . The CBD system, in brief, provides a moderate 
service increase for a great many people, while certain other service segments 
provide much more dramatic service improvements to smaller numbers of people. 
Further analysis, done in the follow-on to this study, must disaggregate the 
CBD performance fiirther in order to create rationale staging strategies. 

The ranking of the affected subareas by- benefit per transit users provides 
a more revealing index of the impact of improved core distribution on the 
various communities of transit users. Inner Cambridge, and BU-Kenmore remain 
unchallenged as the highest priority areas. But immediately below ranks 
the Blue Hill Avenue area of North Dorchester, immediately south of Grove Hall. 
The fact that this district receives the third highest level of service 
improvement is initially surprising in that, technically, it has no station 
located within its boundaries . (Grove Hall is on its immediate periphery) . 
However, the pattern of feeder buses from the area serving the Grove Hall 
Station is so strong that its users rank third in terms of actual transport 
benefit, at about $172 per year. (This compares with $256 for Inner Cambridge, 
$192 for BU-Kenmore, and $141 for Lower Roxbury.) Thus, the service improvement 
returned to Blue Hill Avenue riders, boarding at Grove Hall Station is actually 

higher than the service improvement rendered to the Lower Roxbury district 

riders , who receive about 6 new stations . What the data is dramatically revealing 

here is the distinct level of isolation presently experienced by a very heavy 

concentration of transit users South of the Dudley area. Their 

potential for increased user benefit from improved core transit ranks higher 

than all but two subareas in the region. 

The relative impact of the Partial Circumferential on study subareas is re- 
vealed in the left col\amn of Table II-6. When examined in terms of absolute 
magnitude of benefit, the district which ranks third in terms of benefit received 
is the large South Boston district. Shifting indices to benefit per user. Lower 
Roxbury ranks in the third position. In brief, the data tends to reveal BU/Kenmore, 
Cambridge, and Lower Roxbury as the foremost beneficiaries of the Partial Circum- 
ferential, with Fenway Hospitals, South End, and South Station areas ranking in 
some order below. 

The setting of priorities between various segments of the Full Core Distributor 
poses a much more serious planning problem than the description of beneficiaries 
of the Partial Circumferential. The issue is one of staging overtime. The 
information presented in this section of the report strongly supports the concept 
of the Partial Circumferential, from Kendal Square to Broadway, (and the additional 
short increment to South Station) as the highest priority distribution investment, 
and the logical first stage of an ambitious program of improved core distribution 
services. There are essentiallv three ontions for the next investment after the 
Partial Circumferential is in place. They are: 1) completion of the Full 
Circumferential to Sullivan Square via Union Square; (2) intensification of 
circumferential area coverage through the constructionof spurs and new loops, | 

(Grove Hall spur, Central spur. University of Massachusetts Boston spur, etc . ) ; 
and, (3) a downtown distribution system as a continuation of the circumferential network 
This report poses this essential problem of staging - there is no implication put 
forward that the issue can (or should) receive final determination at this point , 
in the planning process. I 



111 



TABLE I 1-4 



DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFIT FOR THE FULL CORE DISTRIBUTOR 



District 



Annual 
Hours of 
Behavioral Travel 


First Year 
Transportation 
Benefit 


1,508,300 


$ 


3 


,772,000 


1,015,175 


$ 


2 


,539,000 


491,431 


$ 


1 


,229,000 


1,552,837 


$ 


3 


,883,000 


546,925 


$ 


1 


,138,000 


759,600 


$ 


1 


,897,000 


917,394 


$ 


2 


,294,000 


33,919 


$ 




835,000 


207,019 


$ 




518,000 


703,663 


$ 


1 


,760,000 


189,475 


$ 




474,000 


665,781 


$ 


1 


,640,000 


143,725 


$ 




347,000 


237,475 


$ 




594,000 


253,038 


$ 




633,000 


119,564 


$ 




299,000 


193,594 


$ 




484,000 


187,775 


$ 




470,000 


381,419 


$. 




954,000 


354,300 


$ 




886,000 


647,325 


$ 


1 


,619,000 


1,886,938 


$ 


4 


,860,000 


167,775 


$ 




420,000 


93,113 


$ 




233,000 


92,256 


$ 




231,000 


192,281 - 


$ 




481,000 


153,638 


$ 




384,000 


71,200 


$ 




178,000 


827,519 


$ 




400,000 



1 . Downtown 

2 . Back Bay 

3. South End 

4 . BU /Fenway 

5. Fenway Hospitals 

6. Lower Roxbury /Grove Hall 

7 . South Boston/NE Dorchester 

8. Inner North Shore 

9. Charlestown/Everett 

10. Brookline/Allston/Brighton 

11. Jamaica Plain 

12. Inner Blue Hill Avenue 

13. Fields Corner- Neponset 

14 . Newton 

15. Roslindale-West Roxbury- Needham 

16. Hyde Park 

17. Ashmont-Mattapan 

18. Quincy (Partial) 

19. Dedham and beyond 

20. Milton, Canton and beyond 

21. Inner Somerville 

22. Inner Cambridge 

23. Harvard, West Cambridge 

24. North Cambridge 

25. Outer Somerville 

26. Medford 

27. Arlington 

28. Belmont 

29. Watertown 



112 



30. Burlington 

31. Lexington, Bedford 

32. Waltham 

33. Lowell Area 

34. Concord, Lincoln, etc. 

35. Weston, Wayland, etc. 

36. Framhingham, etc. 

37 . Far Suburbs 

38. Far Suburbs 



337,419 
122,250 
96,419 
478,719 
575,731 
367,656 
331,944 
630,613 
342,100 



$ 844,000 

$ 306,000 

$ 241,000 

$ 1,197,000 

$ 144,000 

$ 919,000 

$ 830,000 

$ 1,577,000 

$ 428,000 



113 



TABLE I 1-5 



Distribution of Benefit for the Partial Circumferential 



District # 


Annual Hours 


Annual Benefit 


Trips 


Benef i 


t/Trip 


1. 


432,700 


$ 


541,000 


156,503 


$ 


3.46 


2. 


113,825 


$ 


142,000 


55,988 


$ 


2.54 


3. 


726,450 


$ 


908,000 


14,174 


$ 


64.06 


4. 


2,024,925 


$2 


,531,000 


19,096 


$ 


132,54 


5. 


725,788 


$ 


907,000 


12,375 


$ 


73.82 


6. 


764,225 


$ 


955,000 


12,937 


$ 


73.82 


7. 


817,925 


$1 


,022,000 


24,324 


' $ 


42.02 


8, 


43,825 


$ 


55,000 


13,819 


$ 


3.98 


9. 


23,388 


$ 


29,000 


8,923 


$ 


3.25 


10. 


755,500 


$ 


944,000 


30,318 


$ 


31.14 


11. 


242,525 


$ 


303,000 


8,684 


$ 


34.89 


12. 


224,400 


$ 


281,000 


8,514 


$ 


33.00 


13. 


69,725 


$ 


87,000 


8,233 


$ 


10.57 


14. 


201,963 


$ 


252,000 


15,869 


$ 


15.88 


15. 


338,688 


$ 


423,000 


18,498 


$ 


22.87 


16. 


127,413 


$ 


159,000 


6,994 


$ 


22.73 


17. 


91,788 


$ 


115,000 


14,270 


$ 


8.06 


18. 


96,888 


$ 


121,000 


18,098 


$ 


6.09 


19. 


398,825 


$ 


499,000 


12,603 


$ 


39.59 


20. 


198,125 


• $ 


248)000 


13,957 


$ 


17.77 


21. 


54,200 


$ 


68,000 


13,720 


' $ 


4.96 


22. 


1,672,738 


$2 


,091,000 


17,554 


$ 


119,12 


23. 


123,313 


$ 


154,000 


13,223 


$ 


11.65 


24. 


92,013 


$ 


115,000 


8,191 


$ 


14.04 


25. 


63,813 


$ 


80,000 


6,947 


$ 


11.52 


26. 


113,063 


$ 


141,000 


14,007 


$ 


10.07 


27. 


144,113 


$ 


180,000 


11,901 


$ 


15,12 


28. 


70,363 


$ 


90,000 


5,585 


$ 


16.11 


29. 


103,713 


$ 


130,000 


7,880 


$ 


16.50 


30. 


75,675 


$ 


95,000 


9,634 


$ 


9.86 



ll4 



District # 


Annual Hours 


Annual Benefit 


Trips 


. 31. 


82,200 


$ 


103,000 


7,591 


32. 


78,650 


$ 


98,000 ■ 


8,474 


33. 


44,313 


$ 


55,000 


13,273 


34. 


37,213 


$ 


47,000 


5,105 


35. 


91,888 


$ 


115,000 


4,098 


36. 


152,725 


$ 


191,000 


10,353 


37. 


174,063 


$ 


218,000 


35,666 


38. 


88,913 


$ 


111,000 


104,532 



Benef it/Tripmaker 



$ 


13.57 


$ 


11.56 


$ 


4.14 


$ 


9.21 


$ 


28.06 


$ 


18.45 


$ 


6.11 


$ 


1.06 



115 



Table II-6 
Level of Benefit Received by Siibarea 



Ranking 



The BTPR Partial 
Circumferential 



The Full Core 
Distributor 



Ranking By Absolute Magnitude of Benefit 



Heaviest benefit: 

Second : 

Third : 

Fourth: 

Fifth: 

Sixth: 

Seventh: 

Eight : 

Ninth: 

Tenth: 



BU-Kenmore 

Inner Cambridge 

South Boston 

Lower Rox/Grove Hall 

Brook line/Alls ton 

South End 

Fenway Hospitals 

Downtwon 

Dedham/beyond 

Roslindale/W. Rox. 



Inner Cambridge 

BU-Kenmore 

Downtown 

Back Bay 

South Boston 

Lower Rox/Grove Hall 

Brookline/Allston 

Inner Blue Hill Ave . 

Inner Somerville 

Fenway Hospitals 



Ranking by Benefit per Transit User 



Heaviest benefit: 

Second: 

Third: 

Fourth : 

Fifth: 

Sixth: 

Seventh: 

Eight: 

Ninth: 

Tenth: 



BU-Kenmore 

Inner Cambridge 

Lower Rox/Grove Hall 

Fenway Hospitals 

South End 

South Boston 

Dedham/beyond 

Jamaica Plain 

Inner Blue Hill Ave . 

Brookline/Allston 



Inner Cambridge 

BU-Kenmore 

Inner Blue Hill Ave . 

Lower Rox/Grove Hall 

Inner Somerville 

South Boston 

Fenway Hospitals 

South End 

East Boston 

Brookline/Allston 



116 



Table II-7 
Ridership Increase by Subarea 



For the Full Core Distributor: 

District 

BU-Kenmore 

Inner Cambridge 

Downtown 

Fenway Hospitals 

Inner Blue Hill Ave. 

South Boston 

Inner Somerville 

Back Bay 

Lower Roxbury 

South End 

For the Partial Circumferential 

District 
BU-Kenmore 
Inner Cambridge 
Fenway Hospitals 
Lower Roxbury 
South End 
South Boston 
Downtown 



New 


Origins 


3 


,173 


2 


,640 


2 


,071 


1 


,395 


1 


,391 


1 


,307 


1 


,140 


1 


,093 


1 


,174 




744 



New 


Origins 


2 


,138 


1 


,195 




870 




615 




568 




567 




371 



When examined in terms of their potential for increased ridership due to 
improved distribution, (Table II-7) BU/Kenmore and Inner Cambridge remain 
the highest ranking of all the districts. By way of example, the BU-Kenmore 
area shows a greater potential for ridership increase than the "downtown" 
and "Back Bay" districts combined, (in other words the entire CBD) . This 
example is somewhat extreme based on the documented inelasticity of demand for 
CBD transit demand. However, the user benefit derived from the BU-Kenmore 
area, (with about 20,000 transit trip origins) is still greater than the 
user benefit derived foom the "downtown" district (with 159,000 transit origins) 

Table II-6 provide^ ample justification for assigning the BU-Kenmore, and 
Inner Cambridge areas as the highest priority candidates for improved dis- 
tribution services , with BU-Kenmore clearly the stronger of the two in the 
near term options. The data of Table II-7 reinforces this conclusion. The 
issue then becomes one of assigning the next level of priority to a subarea. 
The right column of Table II-6 provides two options. First when absolute 
Magnitude of travel time savings is the chosen index, the CBD distribution 
segments appear as second highest priority, immediately below BU-Kenmore, and 
Inner Cambridge. (This ranking appears as the upper right coliamn of Table II-6) 



117 



Preliminary information is now available on the role of certain distinct network 
segments which could be staged separately. Specifically, of the $43.6 million 
of the first year transport benefit reported for the core distributor, only 
about $1.5 million would be lost by dropping the "third harbor crossing" link 
tested in the network. BTPR analysis has led to a policy conclusion that 
a special pxirpose tunnel with the capability of serving trucks and emergency 
vehicles in addition to transit vehicles represents the optimal solution for 
the projected Logan Airport harbor crossing traffic growth. Further study 
should continue, (perhaps on a more theoretical level) on the role a fully 
developed network of core distribution could play in the accommodation of 
Logan access traffic. In the meantime, the cross harbor linkage should be 
dropped from immediate consideration as part of the Full Core Distributor. 

Of the remaining $43 million (approx.) of recorded user benefit, $12.6 million 
is generated by trips with either origin or destination in the Central Business 
District ("downtown" plus "Back Bay" analysis districts). Table II-8 shows an 
estimated breakdown of user benefit into component categories. At this point 
the data is preliminary in nature, as actual disaggregation by staged segment 
will require considerable further analysis. 

Table II-8 
Approximate Breakdown of Benefit by Segment 

Benefit for Corridor to Corridor Users $ 5.5 

Benefit for Downtown Users $12.6 

Benefit for Th-trd Tunnel Users $ 1.5 

Benefits for the Rest of the Circumferential 

Corridor Users .$24.0 

Control Total $43.6 

It must be noted that the last entry on Table II-8, "$24 million", is a com- 
posite value comprised of several elements. It represents the benefit derived 
from trips on the "Full Circumferential" (Broadway to Sullivan) with the addition 
of spur service to Grove Hall, Central Square, and Lechmere. Further analysis, 
however, must be undertaken before a precise projection of user benefit for 
the network at various stages of completion can be made. While 
only $12.6 million of benefit are generated to CBD users of the downtown 
distribution segments, fiorther benefits are generated for trips with Circumferential 
destination which are routed over the CBD links. Similarly, no attempt has been 
made to disaggregate the corridor to corridor benefits into categories of benefit 
by links actually used. 

In brief, the detailed planning and engineering analysis to follow must determine 
a rational policy of staging incremental improvements in the core distribution 
network overtime. This study has surfaced certain of the most critical issues 
for subsequent resolution: creation of a staging strategy which integrates the 
need for further investment (beyond the Partial Circumferential) in 1) Somerville 
to Sullivan Square, 2) Roxbury to Grove Hall, 3) Dorchester to University of 
Massachusetts and 4} the Central Business District for the Stuart Street and 
North-South Station tunnel options. The text of Section E noted, on several 
occasions, that spur options tended to be justified only when the network could provide 



118 



some form of radial (CBD) services. Thus, a final strategy might be one which 
established certain CBD connections first, then constructed the spur services, 
and completed the CBD segments in tne last stages of construction. 

It has been the purpose of this Section of the Circumferential Report to 
present quantified statements of user benefits in order to set the stage for 
an intensive program of policy planning engineering and design, for improved 
core distribution services. The initial statements of demand are completed: 
what remains is a multi-disciplinary process to determine the optimum supply 
response to this revealed demand. 



119 



G. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The investigations of the BTPR into Circiomferential Transit have led to a strong 
conclusion of the need for such a facility for metropolitan Boston. Ample demand 
exists to support a major circumferential facility in the proposed corridor. Per- 
sonal Rapid Transit represents a prime candidate technology for this service, 
but several conventional alternatives remain in contention. PRT still has major 
questions to be resolved, both technologically and institutionally, and additional 
study is needed to evaluate and compare the performance and cost characteristics 
of the PRT and conventional options . We conclude that implementation of a transit 
circumferential should definitely be an objective, but cannot be assigned a 
priority at present. A further technical study is required to develop and de- 
termine a preferred solution and its implementation. 

1 . Summary Conclusions 

This report has shown a major demand for transit service in the Circumferential 
Corridor. This corridor is the "Fringe of Core" area surrounding the downtown, 
which seirves functionally as an extension of the core, with a heavy concentration 
of major regional commercial, institutional and educational facilities. It runs 
from South Station, via the Dudley Square and Fenway-Kenmore areas to the Red 
Line in Cambridge. The extension of core level transit accessibility to the area 
is in line with the concept of an Expanded Core development for metropolitan 
Boston, a phenomenon which can already be seen occurring. The institution of a 
circumferential transit facility would both provide service to this heavy demand 
area — intercepting all the radial transit lines and serving primarily as a 
distributor to destinations in the corridor — and provide an alternative, cir- 
cumferential, movement pattern to the existing strictly radial system, thus re- 
lieving the highly congested central subway netwrok . 

The transit circumferential would be a major component in the implementation of 
an overall transit-oriented transportation strategy for the region. It would re- 
place, in part, the Inner Belt highway that was to run through this same corridor, 
and thus symbolize the shift in direction of transportation policy for this urban 
area. This facility can be seen as the first segment of an improved distribution 
system for the entire regional core, which is essential to the development of an 
effective transit system for metropolitan Boston. 

In looking at alternative technologies to provide this service. Personal Rapid 
Transit emerges as particularly appropriate to serve the demand. The pre- 
dominant demand in the corridor is for short-distance distribution trips from 
radial intercepts. PRT is very well suited to this type of service, because 
it is capable of providing low headways and frequent station-spacing, distributed 
close to destinations, yet still offers rapid origin-to-destination service be- 
cause of its station bypass ability. PRT can operate in demand-sensitive mode, 
and vehicles can be concentrated at heavy load points at peak demand periods. PRT 
has extreme routing flexibility, and with its small size of vehicles and guide- 
way, can be accommodated in the tight configurations required in densely built 
areas. PRT will have no difficulty in accommodating the expected ridership levels 
and should provide service at lower cost and environmental impact. 

But many questions remain unresolved concerning this new technology. These in- 
clude reliability and durability, passenger acceptance, personal seciority, more 
accurate estimates of capital and operating costs, and environmental impacts. 
There are also major issues concerning the institutional structure under which 
a PRT system could be operated, the acceptability to labor of such an automated 

120 



technology, and the funding services abailable. These factors need to be inves- 
tigated and evaluated comprehensively, and compared with the characteristics and 
capabilities of the alternative modes that are being considered, before a decision 
can be reached. 

Several other technological options are also in consideration. These include bus 
or light rail in exclusive right-of-way, and light rail or rapid transit in s\ibway, 
running in the circumferential corridor. There is also an option of a circumferen- 
tial/radial rail transit facility, either light rail or rapid transit, which would 
combine service to part of the circumferential corridor with radial service in the 
Dudley to Mattapan corridor. These options also require further investigation and 
development, for adequate comparison with the PRT options. 

This leads to the conclusion that a circumferential transit facility is definitely 
needed in the proposed corridor, but we do not yet know enough about the various 
service alternatives to make a final decision on technology. A commitment should 
be given to the construction of such a facility, and to a further technical 
study to resolve the issues of the various alternatives and develop a preferred 
solution and a proposal for its implementation. 

2. Work Program for Further Technical Study 

The following items represent a basic outline for the work to be included in 
the proposed further technical study of the Transit Circumferential: 

a. Corridor Definition — Cambridge 

• On the basis of the detailed demand data, and preliminary facility 
design and cost comparisons, definition of the specific corridor to 
served among the three options included for the Cambridge segment of 
the circumferential corridor — to Kendall, Central or Harvard Square. 

b. Demand Evaluation — General 

• Extension of the ridership demand analysis to the general cases of the 
conventional technology options, as the analysis to date has been fo- 
cused on the PRT situation. 

• Definition of more precise service demand characteristics (peak loads, 
frequency requirements, destination dispersal, station volumes) from 
the detailed demand evaluation, as a basis for detailed service supply 
design. 

• Evaluation and refinement or elimination of alternatives, where possible, 
on the basis of comparison of demand and general supply characteristics. 

c. PRT Design Development and Analysis 

• Review of scale, complexity and alignment of proposed PRT system and ve- 
hicles, on basis of detailed demand analysis. 

• Analysis and evaluation of alternative varieties of PRT systems available 
in terms of general types (rxibber-tired on guideway, suspended, or ad- 
vanced support and propulsion; varying operating mode capabilities; dif- 
ferent sizes of vehicle and guideway) and in terms of specific manufac- 
turers' products, for their service supply characteristics (system capa- 



121 



city, speed, headways, switching ability, loading pattern, physical 
size, capital and operating costs) ; determination of limited number of 
specific systems to be designed and evaluated in detail, 

• Detailed design development of chosen alternative PRT systems, including 
engineering and capital costing, and staging options. 

• Computer simulation of operation of alternative systems, to determine 
operating pattern, vehicle requirements, control system characteristics, 
network and station design characteristics, and operating costs. 

• Analysis and evaluation of detailed problems previously mentioned as 
needing further investigation, including personal security, environ- 
mental impact, passenger acceptance, reliability and d\irability; pro- 
posal of solutions where required. 

• Analysis of institutional options and implications, labor problems, and 
funding possibilities, specifically related to PRT technology, and 
proposal of preferred resolution and implementation mechanisms . 

d. Conventional Technologies Design Development and Analysis 

• Review of alignment and supply characteristics of the various conven- 
tional alternatives remaining for consideration (bus or light rail 
circumferential in exclusive right-of-way, light rail or rapid transit 
circumferential in subway, and circumferential/radial light rail or 
rapid transit) , in light of detailed demand analysis. 

• Detailed design development, including engineering and costing and 
staging options, of all conventional options, to a level comparable 
to that completed for PRT alternatives. 

e. Comparative Cost/Benefit Analysis 

• Comparative analysis of performance characteristics, user and system 
benefits, financial and other costs, and implementation problems, for 
all PRT and conventional alternatives. 

• Evaluation and choice of preferred alternatives. 

f. Implementation Strategy 

• Develop detailed implementation, funding, and staging program for con- 
struction of chosen system, in context of overall regional transit 
program. 

• Determine and develop proposal for institutional situation for con- 
struction and operation of circumferential, if required. 

• Outline program for future extension of circ^Imferential system, in 
relation to long-term goals of overall transit system. 



122 




ALAN ALTSHULER 
Secretary 






MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Altshuler 

FROM: Peter Metz 

DATE: December 18, 1972 

SUBJECT: Senate Committee on Public Works 



At the December 13 meeting of the Transportation Research Forum, the 
speaker was Barry Meyer, counsel and chief clerk of the Senate Committee on 
Public Works. I thought several of his observations might be of interest to 
you: 

1. There will be five to seven new members of the Committee this 
coming year (though the Democratic leadership will remain unchanged) and 
consequently Meyer foresees that the highway legislation will have to be 
gone through again thoroughly including new hearings. 

2. Meyer believes that the highway legislation which will come out 
of the Committee this year will conform philosophically with the other public 
works legislation which will also come out of the Committee. I wasn't sure of 
the significance of this observation, but it sounds significant. 

3. Meyer's view is that the prospects for creation of a unified 
transportation trust fund are small. He pointed out that while there is a 
unified Department of Transportation, there are three senate committees which 
overview the appropriations and programs for various parts of the DOT and 
observed until there was a unified senate committee dealing with transportation, 
he didn't foresee any sort of significant unified transportation trust fund. 
Meyer indicated that his preference would be to establish a mass transit trust 
fund in parallel with the highway and airport trust funds with revenues coming 
from cigarettes, liquor, or gasoline taxes. 

Meyer also made several observations about detail of highway legislation 
but since I haven't been following this issue closely I am not able to really 
report what may have been significant. Mat Coogan was also present and may be 
able to fill you in on other things that were significant. 



O .--Ct 



P JM : aem 

CC : Mathew Coogan 



4. 



?* 



V' 

. a" 



\ 



i 



-i>-